Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

European Economic Community

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what price increases have been agreed by the Commission of the European Economic Community for this year.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): None, Sir. The Commission of the European Community have made proposals about certain price increases and changes in the market structure, but these have yet to be agreed by the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Tuck: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman any revised estimates for the E.E.C. budget over the next five years and for Britain's contribution to it?

Mr. Rippon: No, Sir.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider that the planned reduction in the number of uneconomic agricultural holdings in the Community over the next 10 years will lead to a diminution in the proportion of this country's contribution to the budget if British entry is agreed?

Mr. Rippon: I think that that is very likely. One of the matters that we have been discussing is the change in the size and shape of the budget in the course of years.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what permanent safeguards for Anglo-Australian trade have been negotiated in the present discussions between Her Majesty's Government and the European Economic Community.

Mr. Rippon: We consider that Anglo-Australian trade will be adequately safeguarded by transitional arrangements, the details of which we are now negotiating.

Mr. Tuck: In view of the fact that the French permanent representative, Mr. Jean-Mare Boegner, stated last week that Britain's allowance of special facilities for the export of capital for the old


Commonwealth must cease and also that membership of the E.E.C. is incompatible with Britain's rôle in the sterling area, first, is it the right hon. and learned Gentleman's policy to continue to give Australia preferential access to the London capital market and, secondly, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take off his rose-coloured spectacles and face the fact that the French want to do away with the sterling area altogether?

Mr. Rippon: This Question refers to trade. There are later Questions dealing with sterling. In any event, the hon. Gentleman has not correctly reported the French attitude.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Does all this mean that no permanent safeguards are being sought for Australia, and, if so, does not that constitute a breach in respect of both Australia and New Zealand of the Ottawa Agreements of 1958?

Mr. Rippon: In or out of the Community, no one has permanent trading safeguards. We are in close touch with all the Commonwealth Governments about these matters. Broadly speaking, they have always supported the reasons for British entry.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what bilateral discussions he has had or intends to have, in the context of negotiations for the enlargement of the European Community, with the French Foreign Minister regarding the pricing structure of the common agricultural policy.

Mr. Rippon: I have not had, nor have I plans to have, bilateral discussions specifically on this subject.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will my right hon. and learned Friend nevertheless make sure that the French Government are aware that the French economy has been the principal victim of the artificially inflated agricultural price levels within the Community and that, in the pursuit of less artificially inflated agricultural prices, British and French interests are identical and not opposed?

Mr. Rippon: All these matters are the subject of general discussion from time to time and no doubt will continue to be. They are not a matter for these negotiations.

Mr. Pentland: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that history is now repeating itself in these negotiations? Is not it becoming more and more obvious that this country could never accept the demands made by France in respect of British membership of the Common Market, and are not the present negotiations becoming more and more a futile exercise?

Mr. Rippon: I do not accept that observation. I think that the hon. Gentleman must await the outcome of the negotiations.

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent the Code Napoleon is likely to apply to the United Kingdom should she join the European Economic Community.

Mr. Rippon: The Code Napoleon will not apply in the United Kingdom should we join the European Economic Community.

Mr. Farr: I am greatly reassured to hear my right hon. and learned Friend say that. Will he be a little more forthcoming and say what the position is likely to be in the long term should we enter Europe, when Europe becomes geared to a federal basis?

Mr. Rippon: I thought that I had been clear. The Code Napoleon will not apply. We have had union with Scotland for a long time and have not managed to harmonise our legal systems. The common law will still apply if we join the Community.

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to visit Mauritius in order to ascertain their problems associated with the United Kingdom application to join the European Economic Community.

Mr. Rippon: I have at present no plan to visit Mauritius.

Mr. Farr: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider changing his mind? Mauritius is the biggest contributor to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, and no country in the Agreement is so dependent on sugar as is Mauritius. Does not my right hon. and learned


Friend think that there is an omission here which it is not too late to rectify?

Mr. Rippon: As my hon. Friend knows I have done my best to visit as many countries of the Commonwealth as I can. I am quite aware of the extreme dependence of Mauritius on sugar. I made it perfectly clear to the conference at Brussels on 16th March that that was so.

Mr. Hattersley: To return to the question which I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman after his return from the Caribbean, may we be assured that all the Commonwealth sugar producers will know what their post-1974 future is likely to be before we accept the Treaty of Rome or accede to the Community rather than live in hope after our entry that after 1974 things will turn out all right?

Mr. Rippon: I have explained to the Community that some assurances must be given for the period after 1974 because of the nature of the cane sugar crop, which has to be planned far ahead. We want what the Jamaican Minister for Trade described to me as bankable assurances.

Mr. Marten: Would one of the assurances be that Mauritius would retain her quota of sugar?

Mr. Rippon: That is what we are negotiating about. We are negotiating about the quantities which can come into the enlarged Community from the developing countries of the Commonwealth, including Mauritius.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm not only that it is quantified access which he must negotiate about but that vague assurances are no good to countries as dependent on this crop as Mauritius?

Mr. Rippon: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct, and I think I have said so three times already this afternoon.

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has informed members of the European Economic Community that after entry Great Britain will seek changes in the Community's institutions; and what reactions he has received from the several countries of the European Economic Community.

Mr. Rippon: No, Sir. If we become a member of the enlarged Community we shall play a full rôle in the development of the Community's institutions.

Mr. Turton: How does my right hon. and learned Friend reconcile that reply with the statement of the Prime Minister on 12th February that he intended to refashion new institutions to suit our needs? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Prime Minister's statement gave great encouragement that, should we enter the Community, we should reduce the bureaucratic nature of the Commission and also reform its agricultural policy?

Mr. Rippon: My right hon. Friend asked me a specific Question about what I had told the Community. I have not discussed this matter with the Community, because it does not arise in the context of the negotiations. Both the present Government and their predecessors made it clear that we shall wish to play a full part in the development of the institutions, and these might well include institutions of a new kind, but we take a practical approach to these problems.

Mr. Leonard: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that it is open to any member of the E.E.C. to propose changes in the institutions at any time?

Mr. Rippon: There are provisions for amending the Treaty. There is provision, for example, in Article 236.

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he consulted with other member nations of the Sterling Area before announcing that the decision on the future of the Sterling Area should be taken after, and not in the course of, the current negotiations with the European Economic Community.

Mr. Rippon: Her Majesty's Government naturally maintain close contacts with member nations of the Sterling Area. If my right hon. Friend is referring to the fact that the rôle of sterling is not a subject for the current negotiations for our entry into the European Economic Community, but one only for discussion with them, I would remind him that this follows from a proposal by the Six themselves.

Mr. Turton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it clear that it is in the interests of the developing countries that sterling should continue as a reserve currency and that to betray those interests, at the behest of any one member of the European Economic Community, would not he well accepted by the people of the developing countries or of this country?

Mr. Rippon: The future of sterling as a reserve currency is not a matter for these negotiations. We have said that we are happy to have discussions about sterling, and in the context of capital movements it is obviously a proper topic for consideration. But on the rôle of sterling, we take the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) who, in 1967, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that whether in its international or its domestic aspect, we are ready for change.

Mr. Shore: How can the right hon. and learned Gentleman exclude consideration of the sterling area from his discussions in Brussels when, as he well knows, questions such as that asked earlier about the preferential access of Australia to the United Kingdom capital market is bound to conflict with preferential arrangements for Common Market countries which we have to assume if we join?

Mr. Rippon: It is a relevant question in the context of capital movement. It is understandable that the Community should be concerned at what would happen during the transitional period about capital movements and whether we should, if we operated exchange controls, operate them to the detriment of the Community and to the favour of the sterling area. That is the kind of question which is being discussed.

Mr. Biffen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that he welcomes the initiative which the French have recently taken in having sterling discussed at these negotiations? In particular, will he confirm that he accepts, broadly speaking, the outline of the situation indicated by the French and quoted by the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) in his first supplementary question today.

Mr. Rippon: All these exchanges are confidential, but certainly I am not surprised that this matter should come up for discussion.

Mr. Healey: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that we on this side of the House recognise that some change in the reserve rôle of sterling is required, although, as we said in the last debate, it is a complex matter and might have to be negotiated in an I.M.F. rather than in a Common Market context? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the reference to sterling made by the French representative last Thursday can be calculated only to make successful negotiation this year impossible, and will he make it clear to the French Government that this cannot be a matter for discussion and decision —or, rather, for decision as well as discussion—during this bout of negotiations?

Mr. Rippon: I hold to the views which the Community has itself expressed about the extent to which sterling and its future could properly come to be discussed in the context of the negotiations.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: On a point of order. In my supplementary question to Question No. 2 I asked the Minister a question relating to M. Jean-Mare Boegner's statement that membership of the Community was incompatible with Britain's rôle in the sterling area. The Minister replied that that Question would come later, but he has not answered it.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the recent consultations of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with the Canadian Government regarding possible British membership of the European Economic Community.

Mr. Rippon: I have nothing to add to the statement I made to the House on 18th March.—[Vol. 813, c. 1659–1662.]

Mr. Blaker: Did the Canadian Government make any suggestions for alternatives to British entry into the Community?

Mr. Rippon: No, Sir. The Canadian Government, like the Canadian people


I met, acknowledged the advantage which would be given to them and the Commonwealth by the creation of a stronger and more united Western Europe.

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the progress of the Common Market negotiations.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress of the Common Market negotiations.

Mr. Barnes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the progress of the negotiations for Great Britain to join the European Economic Community.

Mr. Rippon: I have nothing to add to the statement I made to the House on 18th March.—[Vol. 813, c. 1659–1662.]

Mr. Lane: Is it not clear that a large majority of hon. Members will wish my right hon. and learned Friend success at the next round of Ministerial talks? Meanwhile, would he consider again the desirability of making a Ministerial broadcast, in which he could emphasise not only the strong line which he is taking in Brussels but also the positive advantages of membership for this country, which the public are well able to appreciate when they are properly explained?

Mr. Rippon: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's good wishes and I hope that the various statements which I make to the House serve that purpose even better.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: May I press my right hon. and learned Friend further on the question of sterling? How is what he told us today reconcilable with reports in such papers as The Times and the Observer that France has insisted on the future of sterling becoming a principal matter for the negotiations, which cannot be concluded until that is decided?

Mr. Rippon: I am not responsible for Press statements or Press comment. All I say is that we reached agreement with the Community that the future rôle of

sterling would not be a matter for direct negotiation but, of course, that there would be discussions on matters which were relevant to the negotiations.

Mr. Barnes: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what assessments he has been able to make during the negotiations of the Community's attitude towards overseas aid; and to what extent he thinks the Community will see enlargement as an opportunity to mount more effective overseas aid policies?

Mr. Rippon: The Community has a very good record on overseas aid, and I certainly hope that if the Community were enlarged we should, all together, be able to do a great deal more than is being done now for the developing countries.

Sir G. Nabarro: My right hon. and learned Friend constantly says that he is not responsible for Press statements and, of course, he is not, but is it not a fact that the French have said quite unequivocally that the price of British entry must be the abandonment of the reserve rôle of sterling? In these circumstances, which are fundamental to the whole of Britain's national economy, would not my right hon. and learned Friend himself consider abandoning equivocation and making a perfectly clear statement that we do not in any circumstances propose, inside or outside the Common Market, to abandon the rôle of sterling?

Mr. Rippon: As to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, all I can say is that these things have not been said to me. As to the second part, if my hon. Friend studies what has been said by successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, and what we said in the debate on 20th and 21st January of this year, he will see that we have made it perfectly clear that we are willing over the years to contemplate changes in the rôle of sterling.

Mrs. Renée Short: Is it not clear that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has accepted, for example, a common agricultural policy which, in any case, is against the policy of this side of the House; that most people are now aware both of the short-term and the long-term effects of entry into the Common Market and that all of them, or a majority, are


opposed to it? Is it not clear, therefore, that he should stop this messing about trying to get in, and should now concentrate on dealing with the country's economic problems, which need urgent solution?

Mr. Rippon: On 8th May, 1967, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, then Prime Minister, said—as will be seen in c. 1066 of the OFFICIAL REPORT—and I think I quote him accurately, that he would be misleading the House if he gave the impression that the common agricultural policy was negotiable.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm, contrary to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) and others, that the existence of the sterling area is an encumbrance on the British economy and not a benefit?

Mr. Rippon: I would not go as far as that. There is no doubt, as we have always said, that we must in the years ahead contemplate changes. Those changes may take place within the context of a European political and monetary integration or, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said, in the context of international monetary arrangements. But all these things have been very thoroughly debated and discussed, and I do not think that there is any misunderstanding, or that there need be any misunderstanding, about the position.

Mrs. Hart: Further to the supplementary question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes), can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us how far he has considered the implications of the contribution that would be necessary to the European Development Fund, and how far we should need to increase our own bilateral aid programme, taking account of that, in order to maintain our traditional obligations, particularly to India and Pakistan?

Mr. Rippon: We are discussing what our contribution should be to the European Development Fund. Obviously, we shall be contributors and to the extent that aid is given under that umbrella we shall take that into account in determin-

ing our own bilateral aid programme as it develops. But there is no reason to suppose that one is substituting for the other.

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in the light of recent developments in the negotiations, he will reconsider his decision that there is no need to consider alternatives to entry into the European Economic Community.

Mr. Rippon: The present Government, like their predecessors, considered the alternatives to an application to enter the European Communities and decided that the policy which best met the national interest, as that of the rest of Europe and the free world, was to apply for membership and to seek the enlargement of the Communities.

Mr. Marten: That being so, is it not extraordinary for one, when buying a house, to tell the vendor that one will not buy any other house? As negotiations become daily more hopeless, is it not time that the Government were considering—just considering—alternatives?

Mr. Rippon: But we are telling them that this is the house we like. If we are unable to negotiate for that house, we shall certainly have to contemplate doing without it.

Mr. Jay: As even the Foreign Secretary has said that we are not prepared to hang about on these negotiations indefinitely, are the Government now considering a constructive policy that we should pursue if these negotiations were to break down, which is clearly now possible?

Mr. Rippon: No, Sir. We are proceeding on the basis that, given the political will, which is stated to exist on all sides, reasonable men could settle issues outstanding in these negotiations in a fairly short space of time.

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he now expects that the negotiations on British membership of the European Economic Community will be completed and the terms known.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he now expects


the negotiations in respect of the European Economic Community to end and with what result.

Mr. Rippon: As I told the House in my statement on 18th March, I believe that it is entirely reasonable and possible that we should reach agreement with the Communities on the main issues at or shortly after the next Ministerial meeting. —[Vol. 813, c. 1659–62.]

Mr. Knox: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that many of the negotiating points have already been agreed?

Mr. Rippon: That is so.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that although he has made an assessment of the social security position he has made no assessment whatever of the effect on the National Health Service? Will he now make an estimate of the effect on our hospital service when consultants' qualications are mutually acceptable and when because most consultants are part-time there will be a heavy drain on the N.H.S. because of consultants going abroad to perform operations and being able to do so within only an hour's travelling time?

Mr. Rippon: That point does not arise out of this Question. I understand that there are anxieties on this score. The Community has not gone far in dealing with some of the professional matters which the hon. Gentleman raises. If he will table a Question on the subject, I will try to give him a full reply.

Mr. Fry: When the negotiations are completed, what steps will be taken to test public opinion? What steps will be taken to see that public opinion supports our entry into the E.E.C., as was promised before the General Election?

Mr. Rippon: We must await the outcome of the negotiations and then, as any Government must, put these matters to Parliament.

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in order to avoid weakening British regional policies with the consequence of increased regional disparities, he will list minimum British requirements in this matter and submit them in the

form of a Protocol to the Treaty of Rome, as did existing signatories when the Treaty was negotiated.

Mr. Rippon: Her Majesty's Government accept the Treaties of the Communities and the decisions which have flowed from them. The Treaty as it stands makes provision for regional policies.

Mr. Sutcliffe: May I draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the three-year research study carried out by Glasgow University which, apart from showing that the present regional policies pursued in this country are out of line with regional policies for growth zones pursued by the E.E.C., shows that for all its economic growth, the Community has worsened the problems of the regions at its periphery, with income per head being six and a half times greater in the richest than in the poorest regions and the highest unemployment being 70 times greater in the poorest regions? Does my right hon. and learned Friend not appreciate the concern that we in the North of Britain feel lest Europe should make us more peripheral than we already are?

Mr. Rippon: There is no need for this anxiety. A wide range of development policies are pursued by the Six. As long as there was not a co-ordinated policy, we should pursue our own policies. However, Articles 92–94 of the Treaty make provision for regional policies. These have not been fully utilised yet, but we for our part hope that they will be utilised in due course; and that will be a factor which will change the size and shape of the Community's budget.

Mr. Jay: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what permanent safeguards for British trade with Australia, Canada, India and Pakistan he has proposed in his negotiations with the European Economic Community.

Mr. Rippon: We consider that British trade with Australia, Canada, India and Pakistan will be adequately safeguarded by transitional arrangements, the details of which we are now negotiating. The position of India and Pakistan will be improved by the offers made under the U.N.C.T.A.D. Generalised Preference Scheme. Moreover, the Community has indicated its readiness to examine with India and Pakistan after enlargement


problems in the field of trade with a view to reaching appropriate solutions and affirmed that it will seek to expand and reinforce trading relationships with these countries.

Mr. Jay: Does that mean that the Government are not even seeking any safeguards for British trade with these four major Commonwealth countries?

Mr. Rippon: The Question refers to "permanent safeguards". Nobody has permanent safeguards of that kind.

Mr. Deakins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent his proposal to the European Economic Community that the United Kingdom contribution to the European Economic Community Budget in the first year of a transitional period should be 3 per cent. was based on his assessment of what the United Kingdom could afford to pay.

Mr. Rippon: It was based on what we thought reasonable and equitable.

Mr. Deakins: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman confident that under a Conservative Government the United Kingdom will be able to afford the 7 per cent. to 8 per cent. contribution which is likely to emerge as the compromise figure at the end of the negotiations?

Mr. Rippon: We shall be able to afford whatever is reasonable and equitable.

Mr. Deakins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place with the European Economic Community about the United Kingdom membership of the European Development Bank; what amount the United Kingdom will have to contribute to the capital of this bank; and what amount will have to be contributed to the reserves of this bank.

Mr. Rippon: If the hon. Member is referring to the European Investment Bank, we have reached agreement with the Community on the principle of British membership and are still discussing the modalities with them. I shall inform the House of the outcome when the discussions are complete.

Mr. Deakins: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take care to avoid any

further drain on the capital reserves of this country, apart from what we shall lose under the free-movement-of-capital provisions? Does he have in mind any maximum figure for our contribution?

Mr. Rippon: We shall certainly take our proportionate share of the capital of the bank. At present the capital of the bank is 1,000 million units of account, of which 25 per cent. are paid up.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in the current negotiations with the European Economic Community, he will insist that the unanimity rule within the European Economic Community's Council of Ministers should apply to all decisions taken on the harmonisation of rates of indirect and direct taxation.

Mr. Rippon: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that that gives me a certain amount of comfort? So much has already been conceded at Brussels that the unanimity rule is perhaps the only thing left to guarantee our national interest. As the French are now approaching these negotiations with something of the metallic obduracy of a one-armed bandit, is he aware that this Question is totally superfluous?

Mr. Rippon: Why, then, did the hon. Gentleman ask it? It seems reasonable to me, though he would have found the answer had he looked at Article 100 of the Treaty of Rome, which provides for unanimous decisions in matters of this kind.

Sir G. Nabarro: In the course of the agreement which my right hon. and learned Friend says he has already reached with the Community on financial matters, has he pawned Australia's free access to the British capital market in exchange for other hypothetical financial advantages in Europe? Will he not say in a forthright fashion that the Australians will always be able to come here for their capital without prejudice from any of the arrangements made in Europe?

Mr. Rippon: The answer to the first part of that supplementary question is "No, Sir". The answer to the second


part is that we must have discussions about these transitional arrangements in regard to capital movements.

Middle East (Peace Talks)

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether Her Majesty's Government have made any new proposals in the context of the Four-Power talks on the Middle East since the last extension of the Egyptian-Israeli ceasefire arrangements;

(2) whether he will make a statement on the latest progress in the United Nations Middle East peace talks under Dr. Jarring, as notified to Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the latest position in the Middle East.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): In his proposals to the Governments of the United Arab Republic and Israel, Dr. Jarring sought conditional commitments from them on peace and withdrawal respectively. The United Arab Republic Government's reply gave the commitment for which Dr. Jarring had asked on the nature of peace. Dr. Jarring still seeks from Israel a commitment on withdrawal within the terms of Security Council Resolution No. 242 of November, 1967. It is now more necessary than ever that these negotiations should be enabled to make progress and the Government will continue to play their full part in encouraging the parties to this end, both in bilateral discussions and through the Four-Power talks.

Mr. Dykes: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. One does not wish to make the negotiations more difficult, but bearing in mind two factors of immediate importance which are of crucial significance—the approach of the end of the so-called period of grace and the apparent and indeed disconcerting deterioration of relations between the United States and Israel—do not the Government feel that there might at last be a possibility of some unilateral British initiative vis-à-vis the four-Power talks and the Jarring talks to make sure that

negotiations continue on a meaningful basis and eventually lead to direct negotiations between the parties concerned?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes. That would be our intention. If there is the slightest opening for any initiative by the Government, we shall take it. I think that probably public diplomacy at the present time is a mistake.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will my right hon. Friend continue to use his best endeavours to persuade the Government of Israel that their long-term security would be better served by recognition by the Arab States of international guarantees than by clinging to their present wartime frontiers?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I share my hon. Friend's view. I think that there is an opportunity now of which Israel would do well to take advantage. But we equally understand Israel's desire for secure boundaries within which she may live.

Mr. Hattersley: I am sure that the entire House will be glad that the Foreign Secretary was able to make a statement marginally more hopeful than might have been expected when foreign affairs were debated before Christmas. Perhaps I may ask a question on one point concerning the guarantees that Great Britain might be able to give to the affected Powers. Taking into account the interest and enthusiasm which certainly Arab Governments have for Britain to underwrite some of the peace guarantees, would the Government, even allowing for the enormous pressures on British forces now, be prepared to consider participating in a force which would guarantee peace on the basis of resolutions of the United Nations Security Council?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It is not wise to speculate as to the specific nature of guarantees or the countries which might take part in a guaranteeing force, but in certain circumstances the British Government would participate in a guarantee.

Mr. Goodhart: Since the Soviet Union is the only one of the four Powers with troops on the ground in the Middle East, and as it has reinforced its forces in Egypt throughout the cease-fire period, have we suggested to the Soviet Government that it should withdraw some of its forces which are now in the Middle East?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That is rather a wider question. What this question deals with is the nature of guarantees and the possible composition of the guaranteeing force, mixed up, of course, with demilitarised zones and all that. The wider question of limiting armaments to the Middle East on all sides should be looked at, but not particularly in the context of this Question.

Mr. Mayhew: I welcome those replies, but will the right hon. Gentleman meanwhile consider raising at the Security Council the question of the construction of large blocks of suburban flats for Jewish residents in Arab Jerusalem, which is very provocative, is violating three separate unanimous resolutions of the Security Council, and is an act of vandalism condemned by architects and town planners all over the world?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not think that that is a matter in which the British Government should take an initiative.

Mr. Longden: Irrespective of Jerusalem, which is in a case by itself, I think, does my right hon. Friend think it reasonable to expect the Israelis to withdraw to the pre-war boundaries, unless we are prepared to speculate about the form of guarantee which will be given to them—and not only to speculate but to make definite proposals?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that the first thing which has to happen is that more definition must be given to the Israelis' requirements regarding a frontier. Then, of course, unless there is agreement between, let us say, Israel and Egypt, there is nothing to guarantee. So we want a good deal of information before we can be certain of the nature of the guarantees we offer, but there has been no doubt in the mind of the Israeli Government since the talks in New York that we are prepared to participate in guarantees, and that they could be provided to supplement an agreement.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise, when he speaks of withdrawal by Israel to the pre-1967 frontiers, that this has been interpreted by the Arab Governments as giving comfort to their proposals? Does he not realise that it is totally unacceptable to the Israeli Government to think in terms of withdrawing, for example, from Sharm-

el-Sheikh and the Golan Heights? Does he not also recognise that this is a matter of survival for them?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir. The hon. Gentleman will remember that Israel said that she would withdraw when she accepted Resolution 242. The question is what adjustments are needed to the 1967 frontiers in order to give Israel the security which she has a right to expect.

Geneva Disarmament Conference

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made at the Geneva Disarmament Conference towards an agreement to ban biological weapons.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Joseph Godber): Discussions are continuing on this subject, and we shall be continuing to urge agreeent on the lines proposed in the British draft Convention for the Prohibition of Biological Methods of Warfare. My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that we put forward a revised version of that at the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament on 18th August, 1970.

Mr. Blaker: Is there not a danger that a technical break-through in this field might make agreeent even more difficult? Is it not also a fact that verification in this field is less difficult than in some? Is there not good reason, therefore, for the Conference to make a special effort this session to reach agreement on this matter?

Mr. Godber: Yes, I endorse my hon. Friend's views on this point. This is one reason why Britain, on the initiative of the previous Government, took up this aspect of biological warfare as one for urgency, and we are pursuing that as fast as we can.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: We on this side entirely agree with the attitude taken by the right hon. Gentleman and the Government on this. It was an initiative of ours, and we are very glad that it has been continued by the present Government. Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind the possibility of a fairly full statement as to the position in the Conference, without prejudice to the


negotiations, difficult as they are, which are proceeding, in the form of an interim paper on progress generally?

Mr. Godber: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his first remarks. I should like to consider his second point. I am all for publishing things where that can be helpful, but there are some occasions on which it would not perhaps produce the desired result. I should like to look at that.

Indian Ocean (Security)

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements have been made for the convening and subsequent work of the Commonwealth study group on Indian Ocean security.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: These arrangements are in the hands of the Commonwealth Secretary-General, who is still consulting the Governments concerned.

Mr. Lane: I am grateful for that reply. Will my right hon. Friend continue to do his utmost by way of the study group to get our strategic arrangements in the Indian Ocean on to a wider footing, because exclusive dependence on Simonstown may prove an increasingly uncomfortable posture internationally during the next few years?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I should very much like to have a wide discussion with members of the Commonwealth about the security of the Indian Ocean, which is a very large problem, as my hon. Friend implied.

Mr. James Johnson: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what exchanges he has had with Lagos on this matter, because we understand that General Gowon has pulled out of this eight-nation team? It is no good sheltering behind Mr. Arnold Smith here, since we have had direct communication with the Nigerian Government.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I assure the hon. Member that I am not trying to shelter behind Mr. Arnold Smith or anyone else. General Gowon said that they would not participate in the group, but I thought that that fact was known.

Mr. Laurance Reed: Will the study include an examination of the security of under-sea cable links belonging to Commonwealth countries in the Indian Ocean?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That is one of the matters which could be included.

Mr. Healey: While strongly supporting the Foreign Secretary's apparent desire to keep this study group afloat, for the reasons given by his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane), may I ask whether he is aware that the Government's decision this week to receive a further arms purchasing mission from South Africa could only prejudice the chance of getting any other Commonwealth countries to attend such a conference and may well have the most serious consequences for the forthcoming meeting on sterling balances, in which African and Commonwealth countries are very deeply concerned?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman as to the repercussions of this matter. There has been a South African mission in Europe and it asked whether it could come here. I see no reason why it should not. It does not make the least difference to the commitment which I gave the House not long ago—that the Government's policy remains as it was at the time of our last debate.

Cyprus

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in view of the increasing external problems and decreasing internal tension in Cyprus he will now initiate proposals to allow a reduction of the United Nations forces, including the United Kingdom contribution.

Mr. Godber: We should like to see the United Nations Force, and our own contribution to it, reduced if possible. But we have to bear in mind the operational requirements of its important peacekeeping task. Of course, however, the matter will be kept under review.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will my right hon. Friend consider inviting some of our Western European Union allies who are members of N.A.T.O., as are Greece and Turkey, to participate in this force?

Mr. Godber: I should not be against it in principle, but the general effort is to reduce this force. It has been reduced from '1,000 to just over 3,000. I should prefer to proceed with the effort of trying to solve the problems and to get rid of the force, but if we have to continue with it, I would not put any bar to my hon. Friend's proposal.

Monnet Committee

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his attendance at the last meeting of the Monnet Committee.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I attended the meeting of M. Monnet's Committee on 23rd and 24th February as a representative of the Conservative Party. As hon. Members will be aware, representatives of all three parties attend meetings of the Monnet Committee, together with representatives of political parties of member countries of the Six. The meetings provide a useful forum for inter-European contacts. While I was in Bonn, I took the opportunity to meet the Federal German Chancellor and Foreign Minister.

Mr. Marten: Are there not enough forums in the European context? As the Monnet Committee has, as its main objective, the creation of a Federal United States of Europe, has my right hon. Friend made it abundantly clear that the Leader of the Opposition, on whose support he will have to rely if he wishes to get an agreement in this House to join the Common Market, does not support any federal relationship with Europe? In that case, why does he go on attending this Committee, even as a representative of the Conservative Party?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Many views are expressed in the Monnet Committee and outside it about the future political structure of Europe, and that gives us a good opportunity to meet people who have the future general well-being of the European Continent in mind. I would not pay too much attention to the particular resolutions, but the spirit of going into Europe and contributing to European unity is a good one.

Mr. Deakins: Does the attendance of the Foreign Secretary at these meetings

of the action committee for a United States of Europe indicate to our friends on the Continent that the Conservative Party, as distinct from the Government, is in favour of a United States of Europe?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, Sir. The title of "United States of Europe" is one that I personally would have avoided. I have always said that I do not like labels: "Federal" or "Confederal". What will happen in regard to the political structure of Europe is that institutions will be set up, if there is something of mutual advantage to be done, and that is how we shall proceed.

Sir T. Beamish: Is my right hon. Friend aware that M. Monnet himself at the last meeting made it absolutely clear that the title of the Committee does not necessarily point either to a federal or to a confederal Europe?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That is so. That is why I think these labels are dangerous.

Immigration Bill (Representations)

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from Commonwealth Governments regarding the new British immigration proposals and changes in law, and what replies he has sent.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: None, Sir.

Mr. Molloy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Immigration Bill which is currently going through Parliament runs contrary to the speeches which were made by the Prime Minister in India and Pakistan in January and to the declaration of the Commonwealth? Did any discussions take place with Commonwealth Heads of Government before this Bill was embarked upon?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Immigration to the United Kingdom is a matter solely for Her Majesty's Government. We informed Commonwealth Governments before introducing the Bill.

Alimony (Evasion of Payments)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many approaches he has


received about the problem of British nationals going abroad, and thereby evading payment of alimony to divorced or separated wives in the United Kingdom; and if he will introduce legislation for marking the passports of those United Kingdom nationals against whom an alimony order has been given, so that countries of entry will have greater knowledge of potential immigrants who owe current alimony.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: This is a difficult problem. I am not convinced, however, that what the hon. Gentleman proposes would be a proper use of the passport or would materially help to solve the problem.

Mr. Dalyell: Agreeing that it is a difficult problem, that an issue of liberty is involved and that Australia House has been helpful to me in this matter, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that with the increase of divorce and separation, more and more men are simply "doing a bunk" to Australia and are not carrying out their obligations? If they cannot be traced, is it not tough on either the British taxpayers or the women who are left behind?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have some sympathy with the point the hon. Gentleman raises, but the purpose of the passport is, on the whole, to facilitate travel and not to impede it. There are different ways of dealing with this matter, and I do not think that the passport is a good way.

South Africa (Arms Supply)

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Council of Europe about the sale by the United Kingdom of arms to South Africa; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about arms sales to South Africa from the governments of Italy, France, Holland and Germany; and what replies he has sent.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: None, Sir. The matter has, of course, been discussed

with a number of other governments, but the content of such discussions is confidential.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is precisely the answer I expected, and may I draw the attention of some of my hon. Friends to it, because we have been engaged in other discussions on this matter?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am all for the hon. Gentleman drawing the attention of his hon. Friends to my answers.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Council of Europe, and indeed this House, that we shall sell no arms other than concerned with our legal obligations, otherwise we shall be in the unenviable state of having sanctions applied against us by the African States when we do not know, and when perhaps they do not know, whether we shall ever sell any further arms? Would not a firm reassurance at this stage save us from the worst of both worlds?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, Sir. I have already said—we debated the matter only a short time ago—that the Government reserve their position on this, and we must be the judges whether at any future date we sell any more arms to South Africa.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In the event of such representations being received, will my right hon. Friend, in view of the French position as an enthusiastic supplier of arms to South Africa, discover whether the French Government are associated with these representations as sender or as recipient?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There is no doubt in the mind of any hon. Member that the French sell large quantities of arms to South Africa, and that is their affair.

Mr. Thorpe: As the Foreign Secretary said that he has discussed these matters with our colleagues in the Council of Europe, and since many of us in the House share an interest in the subject, can he tell either them or us whether it is a fact that there is a South African buying mission for further arms in this country at the moment?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that the right hon. Gentleman must just have


come into the Chamber or not have been attending. Yes, there is a mission.

Turkey (Production of Cannabis)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will discuss with the Government of Turkey how international help can be given to those Turkish farmers who earn their living by producing cannabis and other drug raw materials, to enable them to switch their production to other cash crops.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Richard Wood): Many Governments are considering possible lines of action against drug abuse throughout the world. If the Turkish Government wanted to do so, I should be ready to discuss bilateral assistance for rural development, with the object of encouraging the substitution of crops for the opium Poppy.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the Foreign Office aware that it was the view of a number of American politicians making an international drugs study, including Congressman Jim Scheuer of New York, that this was perhaps one of the ways to tackle the evil?

Mr. Wood: As I said, if the Turkish Government indicated a willingness to do so, I should certainly be ready to enter discussion with them.

CENTO Powers (Economic Co-operation)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further proposals there are for strengthening economic cooperation with the CENTO Powers after the completion of the railway from Turkey to Teheran.

Mr. Wood: The railway is only one part of the CENTO programme of economic co-operation. The programme will continue after the railway is completed, and we shall still play our part in it.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: In view of the importance of this new link with Turkey, will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of the Turkish authorities to the Middle East Development Organisation,

which is widely supported in N.A.T.O., to see whether it can help with further development?

Mr. Wood: I take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Overseas Development Administration

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many vacancies for agricultural economists to work overseas remain unfilled on the books of the Overseas Development Administration.

Mr. Wood: Fifteen, Sir.

Mr. Pavitt: In view of the urgency of this matter and the need to balance both industry and agriculture in the developing countries, what special action does the Minister propose to take to fill those 15 vacancies?

Mr. Wood: This is important. There is great pressure on and demand for these agricultural economists, of whom there is a rather short supply, and I am, therefore, trying to take several steps to increase the number of home posts in this field and also to increase the number of agricultural economists in the Corps of Specialists with particular relationship with my Department.

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list in the OFFICIAL REPORT the conferences, training courses and seminars on rural development in which the Overseas Development Administration will be participating this year.

Mr. Wood: I will do so, Sir.

Mr. Pavitt: May I press the right hon. Gentleman to pay much greater regard to this in the whole conduct of his administration of the rural development effort, not just in economic terms but particularly in educational terms and in terms of mutual aid, co-operatives and the extension of the kind of activities which not only enable rural development to take place but give basic democratic understanding to village leaders?

Mr. Wood: I take account of what the hon. Gentleman says. If he reads


the information which I shall publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see, I think, that there is a great deal of such activity going on.

Mrs. Hart: Could the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the concern being shown by the previous Government for rural development in dry areas is being continued by the present Government?

Mr. Wood: The right hon. Lady will see that the concern shown by the previous Government is in no way diminished under this Government.

Following is the information:

Conferences, Training Courses and Seminars on Rural Development in which the Overseas Development Administration will be participating this year

Conferences
The Fifth Commonwealth Education Conference held at Canberra in February, 1971—Agenda items: Adult Education, Literacy, Agricultural Education and Training, Community Development, including Family Planning Programmes, and Education Media.
Annual Conference of the Institute of Rural Life at Home and Overseas.

Seminars
Study Seminar on "Land Tenure, Distribution, and Reform", Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.
Study Seminar on "Development at the Local Level", Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.

Training Courses
Diploma Course in Rural Social Development, University of Reading.
M.A. Course in Rural Social Development, University of Reading.
Vacation Course on "Extension work among rural women in Developing Countries", University of Reading.
Post-Graduate Diploma Course in Community Development and Youth Studies, University of Edinburgh.
Diploma Course in Community Development, University of Manchester.
Course on Community Development and Extension Work, University of London, Institute of Education.
Course on "Rural Development and Administration", Institute of Local Government Studies. University of Birmingham.
Course on Development, including

a. land tenure, land economics and land administration
b. sociological aspects of Development—University of Cambridge.

International Research and Development Centre, Canada

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to visit the International Research and Development Centre in Canada.

Mr. Wood: I have no plans at present to do so.

Mr. Judd: In view of the desperate employment crisis in the developing countries and the urgent need for research into their unique economic and social problems, will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the establishment of this centre by the Canadian Government last year was greatly welcomed? Do Her Majesty's Government have similar plans?

Mr. Wood: I feel that our position and that of the Canadian Government in this respect are not comparable. I welcome the setting up of the centre in Canada, and I shall view with great interest what it does, but we have, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a number of connections with the universities and other bodies, including the Institute of Development Studies at Sussex, which are making the kind of study which I think he has in mind.

World Population Conference

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will take the initiative in seeking to convene, through the United Nations or otherwise, a world conference to discuss as a matter of urgency the problem of increasing population.

Mr. Wood: The United Nations has already decided to hold a World Population Conference in 1974. We supported that decision and intend to play a full part in the conference and in various regional conferences leading up to it.

Mr. Dormand: Does not that reply reveal a dangerous complacency about one of the major problems facing the world today? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the world population will double by the end of the century, and that it is likely that there will be millions of deaths from starvation, apart from the


other serious problems which such an increase in population will bring?

Mr. Wood: I cannot understand the charge of complacency. The hon. Gentleman asked whether we would arrange to set up a world population conference, and I said that one is to take place.

Commonwealth Education Conference

Mrs. Hart: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Commonwealth Education Conference which the Minister for Overseas Development attended recently.

Mr. Wood: Twenty-nine Commonwealth countries sent representatives to the conference, which undoubtedly strengthened the educational links between us. Excellent administrative arrangements were made by the Australian Government and the Commonwealth Secretariat.
The British delegation, which was ably led by Lord Garner, when I was not present, included representatives from five dependent territories and made a substantial contribution to the work of all the committees of the conference. It was able to announce a number of new initiatives in our educational aid policy, which were well received.
The report of the conference will be issued as a White Paper.

Mrs. Hart: I am delighted to hear that the Report will be issued as a White Paper, but can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how far non-traditional methods of education possibly suitable for use in developing countries were considered, and how far the conference was concerned primarily with traditional methods, with curricula and with higher education?

Mr. Wood: There were important discussions about the whole field of out-of-school training. It would take too long to go into detail now, but I will readily write to the right hon. Lady about it, if I may.

Overseas Aid

Mr. George Cunningham: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and

Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the report to him of the chairman of the Development Assistance Committee on the British overseas aid memorandum for 1969.

Mr. Wood: No, Sir.

Mr. Cunningham: Would it not be useful for Parliament and the public to be aware of the frank comments which the chairman of the Development Assistance Committee makes each year on the various financial programmes, and the British programmes in particular, so as to help them assess the part played by the British Government?

Mr. Wood: The chairman of the D.A.C. writes on a personal basis to the members of the Committee, and it has not been the practice to publish those comments from him. On the other hand, the O.E.C.D., as the hon. Gentleman knows, publishes an annual report by the chairman on the development assistance efforts of all the D.A.C. member countries.

Mr. George Cunningham: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of Great Britain's performance on the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development aid target in respect of official flows in 1970–71.

Mr. Wood: It is too early to attempt a considered estimate.

Mr. Cunningham: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that on present proposals for an increase in gross aid over the next few years there is likely to be little increase in the percentage of our gross national product going into official aid, and certainly nowhere near enough to bring us remotely within sight of the Pearson target by 1975? Will he consider increasing gross aid to take an increased percentage of G.N.P?

Mr. Wood: The reason I did not want to give an estimate at present, as the hon. Gentleman asked, is that any estimate made now without full knowledge of the figures might confuse him and the House.

Sir T. Beamish: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that only eight countries reached the Pearson target last year,


that is, Switzerland, Denmark and the six Common Market countries?

Mr. Wood: My hon. and gallant Friend know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that we should do our best to reach that target by 1975.

International Planned Parenthood Federation

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution Great Britain now proposes to make to the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

Mr. Wood: As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) on 9th February, I have increased the original grant of £200,000 to £250,000 for the year 1970–71. For 1971–72, I shall increase it further to £275,000.—[Vol. 811, c. 154.]

Mr. Hughes: I welcome that reply, but does the right hon. Gentleman feel that even those increases are sufficient, in view of the great problem faced in population control?

Mr. Wood: They represent an increase of over five times in the past four years, which is quite considerable. The hon. Gentleman will realise that they are not the total of our contributions towards family planning, which are made through other agencies and voluntary agencies as well.

Sir D. Renton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he will be a very welcome guest at the function next week to launch the new campaign of the International Parenthood Federation, and that it will give him a good opportunity to show what this country can do—because we are one of the most highly-populated countries in the world—to enable other countries to profit by our experience in tackling the desperate problem of overpopulation?

Mr. Wood: I am very grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for inviting me, and I look forward very much to that evening.

Mrs. Hart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the increase which he is announcing for the coming year is a very

modest one on the figure of the increase announced by the last Administration last June? We had hoped for much better for the coming year.

Mr. Wood: The right hon. Lady will admit that it is an increase of 25 per cent. To be entirely non-controversial, I would say that it continues the amount of increase she was making when in my office.

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the position in Northern Ireland.
The House will have shared the regret which the Government felt at the news that Major Chichester-Clark had decided to resign. This Government, and right hon. Gentleman opposite before us, have had a constructive working relationship with him, and we have all admired the determination with which he has pursued the policies which he and we believe to be right in Northern Ireland. There has been no basic difference of view between us about these policies, whether in the social, economic or security fields.
Considerable progress has been made during his term of office in social and economic measures, and in institutional changes, designed to ensure equality and fairness between every citizen in Northern Ireland. This progress was already beginning to bring about an evident improvement in the relations between the two main communities in the province. This improvement is now being deliberately put at risk by extremists who regard a reduction of communal tension as contrary to their purposes. These extremists have resorted to the tactics of urban guerrilla warfare and outright terrorism.
The functions of the security forces in Northern Ireland remain twofold. First, to maintain law and order and to prevent communal strife. Second, to root out terrorism and to deal with extremists with the least possible damage to the progress that has been achieved and to the lives and welfare of innocent people. The Army will act in pursuance of this policy with the utmost vigour, and the British Government will continue to support the Army with all the authority


which is needed to carry out the military measures judged necessary for the purpose.
Following Major Chichester-Clark's visit to London last Tuesday, the decision was taken to send an additional artillery regiment in an infantry rôle, an infantry battalion and an armoured reconnaissance squadron to Northern Ireland. The artillery regiment has now arrived, and the others will follow in the next day or two.
I am sure the House will wish to pay tribute to the character and bearing of the troops in the difficult circumstances in which they are operating.
We well appreciate the gravity of the threat posed by the terrorists, the disruption which it inflicts upon the life and economy of the province and the continuing strain which it imposes upon the people of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and it is our firm purpose to work for the same standards there as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, whether it be in economic and social progress or in the maintenance of law and order. That is the object of the policies pursued by right hon. Gentlemen opposite and by my colleagues and myself. The United Kingdom Government, who have the ultimate authority and responsibility for Northern Ireland, will give their full support to any Government there which co-operates in implementing the policies which we judge right for those purposes.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is entitled to the full support of the House in his insistence on maintaining the policies which two successive Governments and two successive Oppositions have maintained, in seeking reconciliation between the communities and the outlawing of violence, from wherever it may come, and also in the tribute he paid to Major Chichester-Clark for the great devotion to duty he showed in extremely difficult circumstances?
Second, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that British troops, who have carried out most difficult and dangerous tasks in an exemplary way, were put in total charge of security in August, 1969, only on the basis that they would be neutral, firm and fair as between religious and political communities and on the basis

that the civil rights programme would continue? We take his statement as confirming that that is the position.
Third, will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that there is no question of rearming the Royal Ulster Constabulary or of the reconstitution of the B Specials?
I do not press the right hon. Gentleman for an answer on this now—I have not raised it with him—but, fourth, will he consider whether the time may not have come to revoke all private gun licences in Northern Ireland and to confine new issues to those who have an absolute need, for farming, for example, or those living in remote districts, who are entitled to protection, and, indeed, self-protection?
Finally, would he agree that this House —with our ultimate responsibility for Northern Ireland, and as custodians of the principles set out in the Downing Street declaration that all citizens of Northern Ireland must have the same rights and the same equality of treatment as every other citizen of the United Kingdom—should have the opportunity to debate this urgent question at the earliest reasonable opportunity, not perhaps today or tomorrow, I would suggest—and perhaps that would meet the convenience of the House—but when the new Government in Northern Ireland are in being and have stated what their policy is to be on the issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman? Does he agree that it might be helpful if the usual channels could get together to decide when would be the most convenient and helpful day for a debate, which is necessary, and which is on an extremely delicate situation?

The Prime Minister: I much appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's opening words and the support which he has given for the continuation of the policies pursued since 1969. I have already emphasised that it is the rôle of the British troops to help in the maintenance of law and order, which is to be based on ensuring equality and fairness between every citizen in Northern Ireland.
Questions of the re-creation of the B Specials or the rearming of the police were not raised with us at any time by Major Chichester-Clark or by the Northern Ireland Government and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are opposed to this.
We shall certainly examine the right hon. Gentleman's other point about the revocation of gun licences.
I agree that it would be appropriate for the House to debate the matter at a suitable time. I will ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to enter into discussions through the usual channels about a suitable time for a debate.

Captain Orr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we appreciate his having postponed his visit to Bonn to make the statement himself, which emphasises its gravity? Will he ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to note that we think that the debate should be this week, though we agree with the Leader of the Opposition that it should not be today?
On the general question, is my right hon. Friend aware that what has happened is that the exponents of terrorism have succeeded in one of their aims, which is to bring down another moderate Northern Ireland Prime Minister, and that what is at stake is not a question of Right or Left wing, or the reform programme or anything like it? What is at stake is a demand by the entire population of Northern Ireland, with very minimal exceptions, that the Queen's Writ should run everywhere, that this intolerable situation, which has led like an open sore to the crisis, should be brought speedily to an end. To that extent we welcome, if they are followed by deeds, my right hon. Friend's words to indicate a political will so to do.

The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has taken note of my hon. and gallant Friend's point about the timing of the debate. As to the general position, of course there is a political will in this Government and, I believe, in this Parliament to ensure stability and law and order in Northern Ireland. I must make it plain that there is no area in Belfast or in Northern Ireland to which Her Majesty's Forces do not go. I put this point specifically to the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland last Tuesday during our discussions and again on Friday, and he assured me that this was the case, as indeed the G.O.C. and the C.G.S. had already assured by colleagues and myself. The patrolling is carried on wherever the Army wishes to do it, and at the times it wishes to do it. Other measures, where

they are militarily advisable, will be taken. We are bound to consider the advice of our military advisers and to form our judgment upon it; and so far we have found it convincing.

Mr. McNamara: Is the Prime Minister aware that many people will welcome his statement today, following the statement by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the debate in February, and in particular the fact that he underlined the Downing Street declaration of equality of treatment amongst all sections of the community? Can he confirm that, whoever the next Prime Minister or next Government of Northern Ireland will be, Her Majesty's Government will press ahead with the reforms that are still outstanding and see that they are carried forward, particularly local government reform, which has been a major cause of concern?
With regard to the question of rearming the police, while I accept the generality of his statement, will he particularise and deny that he will allow a heavily-armed special riot squad to be formed, as rumoured in the Press today, which would take us back to the old position?

The Prime Minister: I again emphasise that the reform programme has never been in question. It has never been suggested that it should not be carried ahead as fast as possible. I believe that that has always been the intention of Major Chichester-Clark and his Government. It is for them to carry it through. We will give every support to a Government which carries on with that policy. I have made a very specific statement that the question of arming the police was not raised with us, and we are opposed to it.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the Prime Minister aware that his clear and firm statement this afternoon entitles him and the Government, on this issue, to support from all quarters of the House? Is it not a fact that the Premier of Northern Ireland, who has shown great courage and has resigned with great dignity, felt unable to persuade some of his supporters, particularly outside the Stormont Parliament, to show the same confidence in the judgment of the military authorities as they enjoy in this House? We recognise that his successor will have the same problems.
Reverting to the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition, in view of the tremendously high incidence of arms held in private hands, if the military should so advise, would not it be a wise move to have a general calling-in of arms coupled with a widespread search by the Army following it to find out those who are unwilling to co-operate?

The Prime Minister: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's support. I hope it will be seen in Northern Ireland that there is the full support of all the parties in the House for the policies on which we have embarked and which we are determined to carry through. The matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman in the last part of his question can be considered. There are various aspects which we should like to take into account.

Mr. Deedes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a central danger now is the development of a new style in what he described as urban guerrilla warfare, to which neither the Northern Ireland police or our Army are finding it easy to get the right answers, but that until we can get closer to those answers any regime in Northern Ireland will find itself in great difficulties?

The Prime Minister: It would be fair to say that no security force anywhere in the world has yet found a complete answer to urban guerrillas. Nevertheless, I believe that our own forces have made progress. But it is not possible to reveal the steps which they are taking—indeed, to do so would be self-defeating. This is linked to the last point put by my right hon. Friend. A Government may find themselves in difficulties in Stormont unless there is understanding by the people of Northern Ireland as to what the problem really is and how hard the forces and the Governments are working to overcome it. I hope also that they will recognise what Major Chichester-Clark pointed out in his own statement—that there is overall responsibility here, in the United Kingdom Parliament and in the United Kingdom Government, for the security forces and that the policies in Ulster have been carried on in that context. If there can be united support on that basis, as there is in this House, we shall stand an infinitely better chance of getting on top of the terrorism as quickly as the people want.

Mr. Molloy: In an endeavour to get united support amongst all sections of opinion, with the exception of the evil extremists, would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to consider the proposal I put on 18th February, which he said was worth looking at? This was that, in addition to all parties trying to find a solution, he should take the initiative in seeking to draw together the leaders of all the faiths among the people of Northern Ireland—including Cardinal Conway, the Primate of All Ireland—to give their moral support to the endeavours of the British troops and help to bring sanity back to Northern Ireland.

The Prime Minister: That proposal was in fact pursued. On his last visit to Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary met exactly those groups the hon. Gentleman has described. Indeed, after Major Chichester-Clark returned from the weekend of talks at Chequers, he was able to meet Cardinal Conway for, I think, the first time. So there is evidence of an improvement in relations between the communities and of groups drawing closer together. It is obviously the purpose of the terrorists to destroy this and we shall not allow ourselves to be provoked into action which will undermine the progress made in this direction already.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Major Chichester-Clark demonstrated his sincerity and integrity over two very difficult years, during which he has pushed through a reform programme? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that Major Chichester-Clark's downfall came not as a result of a successful overthrow by the Right wing but by growing frustration about his dealings with Whitehall? Can my right hon. Friend convince the House that the Army is winning this battle against urban guerrillas and that the security situation is improving?

The Prime Minister: I understand how deeply my hon. Friend is affected by these matters, but I cannot accept his accusation that the resignation of Major Chichester-Clark was due to frustration with this Government or Whitehall. Last Tuesday, I had the opportunity, with my colleagues, of going over specific points of policy with Major Chichester-Clark, particularly about security, and we both


agreed that all the measures which should be taken should be militarily sound. I would have thought that the whole House would have supported us in this. We are not prepared to take measures which might appear to give in the short term some political satisfaction to those who will not study the problem. We will only carry through military measures which we believe are going to be effective on the best advice available to us. That view was shared by Major Chichester-Clark.

Miss Devlin: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of the so-called terrorists will not be found in the streets but on the back benches of the Ulster Unionist Party? Is he further aware that the main problem in Northern Ireland is a difference within the ruling Government there as to which is more important, the unity of the governing party or the unity of the people, and that while many steps may be taken to put through the existing reform programme it will not be carried through while that situation continues?
Is the Prime Minister further aware that the greatest threat to the security of the people lies in the fact that, at the beginning of this year, our unemployment figure was 10 per cent., and that it is increasing because of the policies of Her Majesty's Government? It is not the military security of Northern Ireland which should be dealt with by this House but the social security of Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman cannot send us soldiers and on the other hand implement policies making the position of the working class, both Catholic and Protestant, increasingly worse and increasing their difficulties and frustration and the possibility of sectarian violence. He cannot legislate against the working class and then send soldiers to keep them quiet.

The Prime Minister: The Government of Northern Ireland, with the full support of all parties in this House, have been pressing through a reform programme and it is very near completion. This seems to have removed grievances which may have existed before in Northern Ireland. The trouble now is the use of force by terrorists to prevent stability being created. If the hon. Lady will condemn violence in every form throughout Northern Ireland, of which,

I believe, the people are sick and heartily tired, she will do more to encourage investment and employment in Northern Ireland than in any other way.

Mr. Biffen: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is his judgment and also that it was the judgment of Major Chichester-Clark that all parts of Belfast are subject to an equally effective military presence?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. That is my judgment, and it is the advice I received from our military advisers. It was also Major Chichester-Clark's advice.

Mr. Callaghan: Following on the previous question from the Opposition benches, and in full support of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, may I ask whether the greatest service that could be done by those who speak for public opinion, whether in this House, on either side, or elsewhere, is not to bring home to the people of Northern Ireland the essential facts of the situation? Whatever short-term political consequences may be, is it not the responsibility, especially of Unionist Members, to tell some of their colleagues in Northern Ireland to stop playing the fool and recognise the real position in this situation?

The Prime Minister: I understand what the right hon. Gentleman means, although I could not use the same language in speaking of Unionists. But I hope that, in Northern Ireland generally and in Stormont, the Unionist Party will be able to unite behind the new Prime Minister and leader of the party and recognise how wholeheartedly the security forces and both Governments are trying to deal with this problem. We recognise the disruption it causes them and the immense strain placed upon them. At the same time, it will take a certain time—I would not make a forecast of how long—to deal with the problem. It cannot be dealt with overnight because of its nature but if there is understanding over there, that will be the quickest way of bringing the problem to an end.

Rev. Ian Paisley: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has confirmed that Major Chichester-Clark did not ask for the rearming of the R.U.C. or the recall of the Ulster Special Constabulary,


can he tell us what Major Chichester-Clark did ask for? Could he give reasons as to why Major Chichester-Clark did not get what he asked for, subsequently resigning as Prime Minister of Northern Ireland? Can the right hon. Gentleman also inform the House that, even although there are areas of Belfast through which the military go at speed in their vehicles, there is no law and order in those areas as far as the police are concerned? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that recently the Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland—now the Prime Minister—told Stormont that, in the Andersonstown-Springfield Road area, there were 811 acts of violence this year against policemen and police stations and that only 18 people were arrested and brought to the courts for such attacks?

The Prime Minister: I stated that Her Majesty's Forces are able to and do go anywhere in Northern Ireland, and theirs is the responsibility. I appreciate the problems which face the police, and, indeed, the dangers which they face constantly and the casualties they have suffered. That is why the forces are prepared to support the police and accompany them when they are required to do so. That, I think, is the main

point about the question of the maintenance of law and order.
During Major Chichester-Clark's visit we went over the arrangements for security in Northern Ireland and the strength of the forces, and afterwards we allocated the additional two battalions and the armoured squadron. We went over the question of cordoning, the disposition of the forces and the actions they take to deal with the new form of urban guerrilla warfare. It was on the basis of our discussion that the G.O.C. has been examining further ways of dealing with this, which he will implement as and when he concludes that it is militarily right and wise to do so.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members have heard that there is the prospect of a debate on the subject.

Mr. Pounder: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. Earlier I gave you notice that I would seek to secure a debate on Northern Ireland under Standing Order No. 9, but in view of what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and what I took to be his categorical assurance that there would be an early debate, with your permission, I shall not pursue the matter.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

[4TH ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended, further considered.

New Clause 8

ORGANISATIONS ELIGIBLE FOR ENTRY IN SPECIAL REGISTER

(1) As soon as practicable after the passing of this Act, the registrar shall institute, and shall thereafter maintain, a register under this section (in this Act referred to as 'the special register').


5
(2) Except as provided by subsection (4) of this section, no organisation shall be eligible for entry in the special register unless it is either—



(a) a company which is for the time being registered under the Companies Act 1948, having been so registered before the passing of this Act, or



(b) an organisation not for the time being registered under that Act, but incorporated by charter or letters patent, whether granted before or after the passing of this Act.


10
(3) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, any organisation shall be eligible for entry in the special register if—


15
(a) it is an independent organisation consisting wholly or mainly of workers of one or more descriptions;


(b) its activities include the regulation of relations between workers of that description or those descriptions and employers or organisations of employers; and


(c) it has power, without the concurrence of any parent organisation, to alter its own rules and to control the application of its own property and funds and those of its branches and sections (if any).


20
(4) Any organisation, whether it fulfils one or other of the conditions specified in subsection (2) of this section or not, shall be eligible for entry in the special register if—



(a) its membership consists wholly or mainly of constituent or affiliated organisations or of representatives of constituent or affiliated organisations;


25
(b) its activities include the regulation of relations between workers and employers or between workers and organisations of employers; and


(c) each of the constituent or affiliated organisations is either a trade union or is an organisation for the time being entered in the special register.



(5) In this section 'parent organisation', in relation to an organisation, means an organisation of which it is a branch or section.—[The Solicitor-General]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.58 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this new Clause I am prepared to allow Government Amendments Nos. 58 to 61, 98 and 99 and Opposition Amendment No. 170, in page 45, line 33, after 'Act', insert 'independent', and 238, in page 45, line 35, leave out 'principal'.

The Solicitor-General: New Clause 8 is the first of three which deal with the special register, the consequences of registration and the establishment of the special register. The object of the three,

and new Clause 8 in particular, is to find a place in the Bill for organisations which are not primarily concerned with industrial relations but nevertheless play an important role in industrial relations. These provisions have been framed following representations from a number of professional organisations, but it is important to appreciate that the special register is not being established for professional organisations as such.
Professional organisations, for example, which have the regulation of industrial relations as a principal object can register as a trade union and nonprofessional organisations can register under the new Clause. The reason for


the establishment of the special register is to deal with organisations which are not primarily concerned with the regulation of industrial relations but have nevertheless developed an important industrial relations role. The provisions will probably be of value to these professional organisations mainly because, while they have other primary objectives, they are nevertheless exercising an increasing role in collective bargaining and representation of workers.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman be kind enough to itemise one or two organisations so that we can get the spirit and flavour of what he is proposing?

The Solicitor-General: I cannot itemise them, but a number of bodies are likely to be affected, such as the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, the British Medical Association—that kind of body. I have explained why this kind of provision is necessary by reference to illustrations of that kind. The position is that a body which has got status as a chartered body or as a body which is already registered as a limited company is not capable, either under the law as it stands or under the Bill, of registration as a trade union. A body with a charter, such as the Royal College of Nursing, must, in order to acquire its charter, have as its principal object the promotion of the public good and cannot have as one of its principal objects the advancement of the interests of its members. Therefore, a chartered body of that kind cannot register under the existing law, nor would it be able to do so under future law without the new Clauses.
4.0 p.m.
Similarly, a body registered as a limited company under the Companies Acts cannot register as a trade union either under the law as it stands, because of the provisions of Section 5 of the 1871 Act, or under the law as it will emerge from Clause 141 of the Bill. Yet there are in existence bodies of both the kinds to which I have referred either operating under charter or as limited companies which exercise the function of regulating industrial relations, and it is desirable for those bodies—for organisations of that kind which engage in collective bargain-

ing—to be able to exercise the rights conferred on trade unions under the Bill and to accept the obligations imposed on trade unions under the Bill. The Bill confers rights and defines obligations, and it is right that bodies of the kind which I have mentioned should be similarly affected.
Therefore, the effect of the new Clause and of the establishment of the special register is to allow organisations which are chartered or registered companies to be entered on the special register provided they satisfy the Registrar that they are engaged in the regulation of relations between workers and employers and provided they fulfil the other obligations for eligibility as a trade union under the ordinary registration provisions.
The only difference between the qualifications for inclusion on the special register, apart from chartered or company status, is that the regulation of relations need not be a principal object of the organisation, provided its activities include the regulation of relations between workers and employers. Once such an organisation is entered in the special register, it is to be treated as a trade union for the purposes of the Bill and it retains its existing obligations under its charter or company registration. There are, therefore, certain overlapping obligations—for example, in respect of the preparation of accounts—which it is not necessary to make applicable to organisations on the special register because they have comparable obligations under the Companies Act or under their charter.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: It has often been stated by the chartered engineering institutions—and I am a member of one of them—that they are precluded by their Royal Charter from acting as trade unions. It is therefore not easy to see why they should be required to register on the special register.

The Solicitor-General: That point arises more directly on one of the other new Clauses, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised it now. A number of bodies of the kind we are talking about have either express or implicit limitations of the sort the hon. Gentleman mentioned. But with the passage of years they have increasingly been exercising what I might call industrial relations functions and negotiating for their members. The probability some years ago


was that the exercise of those functions by them did not necessarily require them to be regarded as trade unions because of the limited definition of trade unions in the existing legislation.
I do not want to give a conclusive view on that matter because there is room for argument about it. I do not wish to pronounce on whether the bodies which the hon. Gentleman mentioned or other bodies are staying within the provisions which regulate their present organisation. In the context of this legislation, a number of bodies of that kind are exercising their negotiating rights, or are seeking to do so, on behalf of their members, and the Government's intention is that they should continue to be able to do so under the Bill. There may be different questions to be considered in relation to different organisations, but, if they register on the special register, they are to be treated as trade unions for the purposes of the Bill and they are to be required to fulfil the same obligations, subject to the detailed omissions to which we shall come in new Clause No. 10. There are certain provisions which it is not necessary to apply twice.
The obligation in Clause 61—that the organisation should conform with the guiding principles—will apply to these organisations on the special register. Because of their special nature, by virtue of their charter and by other obligations with which they have to conform in order to retain their chartered status, they may be precluded from undertaking certain activities. That is a matter for them and their present constitution. But, as long as they match up to the conditions I have mentioned—that they regulate relations between employers and workers, that they are independent and that their rules and everything else qualify them for registration —the Government feel it right for them to be entitled to this form of registration.
The provisions of new Clause No. 8 and those which follow are limited either to bodies which are already registered as limited companies or to bodies which achieve chartered status. There is an Amendment dealing with the fact that that provision is not confined to bodies which already have chartered status. The reason for that, which we can discuss later, is that there are no doubt some organisations which aspire to chartered

status which regulate relations between workers and employers. If they acquire chartered status, they could transfer to the register if that was necessary. They would have to conform with the conditions of their charter and with the provisions laid down in the new Clause and the associated Clauses.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Would an organisation registered on the special register have any freedoms or abilities denied to organisations not so registered? For example, would an organisation on the special register be able, if its rules so provided, to operate a pre-entry closed shop?

The Solicitor-General: No freedom of that kind is conferred. The point of the Bill as drafted was that certain organisations are recognisably performing trade union functions, and it was represented to the Government that they were precluded from registration and qualification for the rights and other matters applying to trade unions. Our proposal is designed to admit them to a register specially designed to have regard to the fact that they are differently constituted. There is no intention of giving them rights which an ordinary trade union would not have under the legislation.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: The Solicitor-General said that it was proposed to limit the provisions to bodies already registered as limited companies, leaving the chartered point aside for the moment. If it is not necessary to have this special combination of function—the limited company and the negotiating function—in the future why is it necessary to give it special treatment now?

The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for raising that point. A number of organisations exist with a limited company status which are subject to rules on accounts and matters regulating their financial structure, and to require them to reconstitute and restructure themselves would cause great inconvenience for no advantage. It might be very difficult for them to effect a transformation of that kind. The intention is to enable them, operating in this field as they do now, to continue operating, but not to leave open the possibility of additional bodies of that kind corning into existince. The charter


point, as the right hon. Lady appreciates, is rather different.

Mr. James Sillars: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman leaves the question of the closed shop, will he say whether it will be possible for an organisation on the special register to engage in an approved closed shop agreement?

The Solicitor-General: Yes, that is right, if it qualified by the same tests, but, for the purposes of those provisions, as for, any other provision except where excluded, the term "trade union" includes a body registered on the special register, but it would have to meet the tests and qualifications we discussed on new Clause 1 and the new Schedule.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain how the pre-entry closed shop provisions apply to the pre-entry conditions of, for example, membership of the Bar Council, which must date at least three years before one enters the profession, with a host of complicated rules and regulations?

The Solicitor-General: There are no provisions requiring membership of the Bar Council as part of the means of access to practising at the Bar. The Bar Council is a professional organisation, membership of which is voluntary, and there is no requirement to belong to it. I know that at least 10 per cent. of practising members of the Bar do not belong to the Bar Council and I have been concerned in trying to analyse why. Membership of the Bar Council is not a precondition either for entry to the profession or for continued practice in the profession. The same is true of the other professional organisations with which we are concerned.
The structure of the new Clause is that subsection (1) establishes the special register—

Mr. Eric S. Heller: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman leaves that point, suppose the Bar Council could apply for registration on the special register and then decided to go for an approved closed shop, what would be the position then?

The Solicitor-General: I do not think that the Bar Council, because of the

nature of what it does, would qualify for inclusion on the special register anyway, but any organisation which is included on the special register can apply for a closed shop. The reason why the Bar Council could not do so is that the Bar Council deals with self-employed people on separate contracts, and does not normally regulate relations between members of the Bar and an employer of the kind to which the new Clause 1 closed shop provisions would apply. I repeat that the General Council of the Bar is an organisation of which membership is voluntary. One is called to the Bar and qualified for the Bar through the educational institutions of the Inns of Court, and one is not a member of those. They are not in any sense an organisation comparable to those covered by the Bill. The professional association, of which membership is voluntary, is the General Council of the Bar, the British Medical Association, or a number of other bodies of that kind, and it is to that kind of organisation, if it qualifies under the new Clause, that these provisions are intended to apply.

Mr. Albert Booth: Since some doubt has been expressed on whether the Bar Council would be covered by this provision, will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider the question in relation to the British Medical Association, since there is no doubt that the B.M.A. is the sort of body for whom the special register is provided. If the B.M.A. were to seek to secure special closed shop rights, would it be able to do so in a way which would preclude, for example, the Junior Hospital Doctors' Association from negotiating on behalf of its members, since this—and I assume the same would apply in certain other public service employment—would be overriding what is now a power of the Minister? At present. the Minister can say who he negotiates with, and frequently refuses to recognise bodies such as the J.H.D.A. Would it not be totally at variance with the main theme of the legislation if the creation of a special register were to debar people from negotiating on behalf of their members in an organisation such as the J.H.D.A.?

4.15 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: It is difficult to be confident that I can give absolutely the right answer in connection with a


whole variety of different competing recognition situations that might arise. The intention of the legislation is to enable recognition disputes and, following on from those, applications for an agency shop or a closed shop, to be resolved through the machinery of the legislation by the C.I.R., and so on. The intention is that any bodies which exercise bargaining rights, in the many fields which one could consider, should have equal access to that machinery for resolution in the light of what the C.I.R. judges to be right. I have not had an opportunity of studying the constitution of the J.H.D.A., but I suspect that it is already capable of qualification as a workers' organisation, indeed, it may be registered as such—I do not know. Certainly if it is not a company or a chartered body, it would be able to assert its rights through the recognition machinery.
On the other hand, the B.M.A. could not. All we are doing is ensuring that those organisations which represent different and possibly overlapping ends of the medical spectrum should have equal rights to claim recognition and have recognition disputes resolved for them through the bargaining machinery.
I can think of a comparable situation between the Confederation of Health Service Employees and the Royal College of Nursing, where they are organising the same Field Without the special registration provisions, C.O.H.S.E. would be in and the R.C.N. would be out. The intention is to enable the opportunity of seeking recognition to be available to all bodies which can rightly claim to organise workers in a given field.
If I may just go back to the B.M.A. point and the closed shop provision, B.M.A. is a voluntary association of doctors. It is like other professional organisations and, as the hon. Member knows, some people belong to the B.M.A., some do not and others belong to the J.H.D.A. instead. It is, therefore, the kind of organisation for which these provisions are intended.
If I may finish my exposition of the shape of the new Clause, subsection (2) indicates the kind of organisation which qualifies, that is to say, the pre-Act company or chartered body. Subsections (3) and (5) make it plain that access to the new register is restricted to an organisation which engages in the regulation of

relations between workers and employers, which is an independent organisation and which has control over its rules and funds. Subsection (4) makes comparable provision for federations. It is upon this basis—that the special register, with the other Clauses that deal with it, provides access to the same opportunities and subjection to the same obligations as are available for other workers' organisations for bodies which qualify in this way—that I commend the Clause to the House.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: The Opposition are suspicious of the new Clause and the associated Amendments.
The first hint that the clause was being conceived by the Government came in the reply to a Question in another place by Lord Janner, to which Lord Windlesham replied on 28th January, 1971, to the effect that it had been decided to introduce an Amendment to the Industrial Relations Bill in the House of Commons to enable professional organisations which have a negotiating function to be placed on a special register and thereby benefit from all the privileges accorded to trade unions by the Bill.
One balks somewhat at this confirming of the ambit to the according of privileges to the especially chosen professional associations. That is a major ground on which we feel suspicion about the Clause and its associated Amendments. We wish to press strongly to discover what duties specifically—not in general terms—will be imposed upon bodies which are registered in the special register. What disabilities will they suffer?
Fundamentally, the Opposition reject a Bill which produces classes of professional or negotiating bodies. We are entirely against that. We accept the idea that there should be negotiations in industry about conditions of employment and that these should spread as widely as the need exists. But we feel that it should be on a basis of equality. If trade unionism is important for the industrial worker and has something to offer the white-collar worker, it should be the same trade unionism and not one of superior and special brand. This matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) in Committee on 9th February. We wish to press a number of questions. I stress that


we want clear answers to them. If we do not have clear answers, I am certain that the Opposition will vote against the Clause and its associated Amendments.
Is the special register a mechanism to extend trade unionism, or is it a mechanism to confine trade unionism, as we ordinarily describe it, to the strictly industrial sphere? What are the motives for introducing the Amendments? Are they to set up a barrier to prevent the spread of trade unionism in the white-collar domain? Those suspicions cannot be resolved unless we know specifically which bodies were referred to by Lord Windlesham as pressing for special privileges, and what their interest is.
Following the new Clause and Amendments is a difficult task for it is a very complicated matter at this stage of the Bill, but if one tries one's best, as I have, to discover what categories are comprised in the special register, one finds that we seem to have four categories.
First, there are independent organisations of workers, which regulate relations with employers and have power to alter their own rules, and so on, which were registered as companies under the Companies Act, 1948, prior to the commencement of the Industrial Relations Bill and are accepted for registration within six months of that commencement. There are no such things. As I understand it, strictly speaking, trade unions could not register as companies because they were excluded by Section 5 of the Trade Union Act, 1871, and by Section 459(b) of the Companies Act, 1948, But there may be employers' organisations or professional associations that we have heard about today, mentioned by Lord Windlesham in the other place, which may or may not be independent organisations of workers. We do not know. We cannot tell until we know which they are and why they wish to be put on the special register.
The second category is independent organisations, as I have mentioned, which are not registered under the Companies Act but are incorporated by charter, as the new Clause provides,
… whether Granted before or after the passing of this Act.
An Opposition Amendment dealing with that will be moved later. I refer to it in passing. Are the Government proposing to grant charters in future to

bodies which come along and, for one technical reason or another, cannot register as trade unions? Shall we find that, where it suits the Government, closed shops will be circumvented and bypassed by the granting of charters to bodies, but also where it suits them, they will leave privileged bodies in their position of privilege and not grant them charters?
The third category is similar. It is independent organisations not registered under the Companies Act but incorporated by letters patent. Again the same proviso applies
… whether granted before or after the passing of this Act.
The same question must be asked. What is the point? Why have registered companies to stop suddenly with the coming into effect of the Bill—at least concerning workers' organisations—but chartered bodies and bodies incorporated by letters patent will apparently continue to be created after the Bill. For what purpose?
The fourth category is parent organisations whose constituent organisations are either trade unions in the ordinary sense, within the meaning of the Bill, or organisations entered in the special register. That raises no question—

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Can my hon. and learned Friend say a little more about the disqualifications which exist in the first category that he mentioned? There were two disqualifications to which he referred in legislation already on the Statute Book. What are those two disqualifications?

Mr. Murray: It would be more convenient to deal with that at a later stage.
The obvious result of the terminology, looking at these categories, and not knowing precisely which anonymous bodies are pressing for this, is that one is bound to see that a distinction which stands out is a class distinction between special and ordinary trade unions. That is quite unnecessary.
Opposition Amendment No. 238 deals with this specific point. This matter hangs on Clause 57, and the purpose of Opposition Amendment No. 238 is to delete the word "principal", and if one does that, the category described in Clause 57(1)(a) would be an organisation of workers which
consists wholly or mainly of workers of one or more descriptions and is an organisation


whose objects include the regulation of relations between workers of that description …
and so on. Thus it would appear that if effect were given to Opposition Amendment No. 238, there would be no need for the special register.
One of the explanations put forward by the Government for this special register is that the constitution, or founding charter, or letters patent, or the articles of association and memorandum of a company, are such that they might not come under the description of Clause 57(1)(a) and so be accorded what is said to be a privilege of being a trade union in terms of the Industrial Relations Bill. The answer would appear to be a recasting of the Bill. That does not seem to be a terribly difficult exercise. At this stage of this greatly confused and chopped around Bill, anything is a difficult exercise but there is nothing to stop this type of Amendment being carried through to its logical conclusion, which would have the happy result that, instead of creating a new and privileged—that is the word used by Lord Windlesham in the other place—category of bodies registered under the Bill, we should have one single class of registered workers' organisations.
4.30 p.m.
I want to point that moral, because there are three classes of workers' bodies under the Bill. It is not just a two-fold division but a three-fold division of class. We started off right at the beginning of the discussion on the Bill with the distinction between organisations of workers which were registered under the Bill and organisations of workers which were not. This was a class distinction which we objected to from the first and which we continue to press. So there are workers' organisations which are out in the cold because they refuse to or cannot register under the Bill, for one reason or another. That is the lowest class. The middle class is an ordinary trade union in the sense of a trade union which registers under the Bill. Then there is the upper class, and it is as clear as a bell what that is: these are the people who get on to the special register.
If there were doubt about that, the Government themselves have underlined this class distinction because the Government Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 make it clear that a body which is a workers'

organisation registered in the special register is different from a workers' organisation which is registered as a trade union. Similarly, a distinction is drawn between bodies which are registered under the terms of the special register Clause and organisations of employers registered under the Bill.
The removal of these invidious class distinctions can be made by giving effect by both Opposition Amendments which are being discussed with the Clause. No. 238, to which I have already referred, deals with the deletion of "principal" from Clause 57(1)(a). Opposition Amendment No. 170 obviously suffers from the defect of a misprint. The purpose of the Amendment is to insert "independent" before "organisation" in the second line of Clause 57. It is obvious that "an" has been mistyped as "Act". I shall address the House on the assumption that the effect of the Amendment would be to insert "independent" between "an" and "organisation" at the beginning of Clause 57.
These two Amendments together bring us back to the conception which has animated the Opposition throughout—that, if there is to be an Industrial Relations Bill of this kind and quality it should at least be egalitarian and have the same effect for all and should not create class distinctions within the field of negotiating terms and conditions of employment. It should, rather, eliminate such distinctions.
If it is intended to set out to improve industrial relations—it is hard to see the Bill as being a convincing expedient in that light—I should have thought that an effort would have been made to achieve a negotiating machinery which could be effective and which could spread its advantages to all sections of employment, upwards into the white collar level and outwards into other directions where at the moment trade unionism is weak because the nature of the employment is weak. If it is a good negotiating machinery, sufficiently satisfactory to have the State's backing in a Bill of this kind, should we not ensure that all have the advantage of it? Should we not ensure that the privileges are for all and that the duties and disabilities are the same for all?
If it is the case that any Government are likely to pursue a prices and incomes


policy, either openly or secretly—a prominent member of the Government said something to that effect the other day just before the newspapers went off on the 18th March—it does not help to create the right sort of adjustment between different kinds and descriptions of employees, involving differentials and the rest to have different strata of negotiating machinery and different classes of unions and professional bodies; because that will make negotiation and adjustment between these levels all the more difficult.
I turn now to question the significance of Government Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 which refer to Clause 141, which was sufficiently obscure without Amendments guaranteed not to dispel the darkness but, rather, to increase it. It is difficult to work out the significance of Amendment No. 99. I believe that there is some incoherence in it and that possibly it is meant to amend Clause 141 by leaving out all after "any of those Acts". If the Clause is read in that sense, the Clause as amended would seem to say, first,
No organisation of workers shall after the commencement of this Act, and no employers' association shall after being registered as an employers' association under this Act, become registered—
(a) as a company under the Companies Act 1948".
I shall leave out the rest, because I want to concentrate simply on the point about companies.
Subsection (2) would read:
Any registration of an organisation of workers as a company under the Companies Act 1948, where the registration was effected before the commencement of this Act—

(a) shall become void at the end of the period of six months beginning with the date on which section (Application for entry in special register) of this Act comes into operation, unless before the end of that period the organisation makes an application for entry in the special register, and
(b) if such an application is so made, shall become void if on that application entry in the special register is refused."
Then subsection (3) would be:
(3) Except in the case of registration of an organisation of workers as a company under the Companies Act 1948, any registration under any of the Acts specified in subsection (1) of this section, shall be void.
I take it that that is what the Amendment is intended to achieve. Is subsection (3) intended to have the drastic

effect that it seems to have, because it seems literally to say that no registration under the Companies Act, 1948 can continue after the Bill becomes law? I am sure that that is not what is intended, but I ask the Government Front Bench to consider if that is not what they have said.

The Solicitor-General: The provision would read as follows: "Any registration", and then would be inserted the matters the hon. and learned Gentleman has already dealt with and which would be interposed by Amendment No. 99. Then subsection (3) would go on in this way:
Except in the case of registration of an organisation of workers as a company under the Companies Act 1948, any registration under any of the Acts specified in subsection (1) of this section
and then we go back to paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) as it stands—
(a) of an organisation of workers …
(b) of an employers' association … shall be void.
In other words, the whole of the existing paragraphs (a) and (b) in subsection (2) remain.

Mr. Murray: I should have thought that that is what is intended, but it is a tortuous exercise. That subsection might by itself cause a good deal of alarm in the hearts of some company secretaries if they saw it by itself and unclothed by the rest of the obscure garments by which Clause 141 is now covered. At present a trade union cannot be a company because of Section 5 of the Trades Unions Act, 1881, which provided that the Companies Acts
shall not apply to any trade union and the registration of any trade union
thereunder "shall be void".
That is the first obstacle about which my hon. Friend asked me.
The second one is Section 459(9,b) of the Companies Act, 1948, which can be paraphrased as saying that nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of Section 5 of the Trades Unions Act, 1871, which voids the registration of a trade union under the enactments relating to companies.
Putting the two obstacles together, one finds that, following the definition of the 1871 Act as amended, neither can a trade


union under existing law become a registered company, nor can a company act as a trade union. There was a case in the city of Edinburgh in about 1903 where the matter of a company acting as a trade union was considered by the courts. They reached the conclusion, which has stood unchallenged ever since, that if a company acts as a trade union it voids its registration as a company. That is the ultimate deterrent to companies becoming trade unions.
Taking the present law, it is fairly obvious that a body needs three Acts, until this Bill becomes law, to come within the definition of a trade union. It has to take the 1871 Act, the 1876 Act and the 1913 Act. Taken together, they provide a clear and coherent definition of a trade union. As I understand it, the repeal of the 1871 Act, which is what the present Bill does, will knock the bottom out of that. Therefore, were it not for the express provisions of Clause 141 as amended, it would be open to a trade union to seek to register as a company, and one does not have to extend one's imagination very far to see that underprivileged, excluded, third-world trade unionists who are left as an organisation of workers with no privilege of registration may well think that a clever way out of their liabilities is to register as a company limited by guarantee. In the event of their being found guilty of an unfair industrial practice, they could escape liability by this means. However, that possibility has been excluded, and this may have led to the obscure Amendment to Clause 141. But it is clear that once Clause 141 goes through we have a new barrier which prevents trade unions from becoming companies.
We are left with the two classes: trade unions which have objects which can bring them into the ordinary category of registered unions within the meaning of the Bill, and these other strange bodies which are pressing for special status and now being accorded it by the Clause.
I want to press again the need for the Government to come clean on this matter and tell us who these bodies are. One can imagine a number of professional bodies which may wish to gain privileges through the Bill. The British Medical Association is one which has been mentioned. Chartered bodies are mentioned.

I do not know whether the Confederation of British Industry, which is incorporated by Royal Charter, is a body which wants special privileges under the Bill. Chartered secretaries are also a possibility. There are various bodies; N.A.L.G.O., D.A.T.A. and various others.
We want to hear about them, and we also want to know what is to be the position of professional bodies or associations whose charters or letters patent in effect give them a closed shop. What is to happen to them once they are registered on the special register? I have in mind chartered accountants and professional bodies of that kind. It will not do merely to say that they may get closed shop provisions of the limited kind now provided in the Bill, because it may be that the charters or letters patent of these institutions already provide a preordained closed shop.
Do the Government intend that letters patent or charters of that kind should be struck at by the Bill? If so, why does not the Bill say so? Why does not it give a power to alter the terms of the charter or letters patent so as to deny this oblique way of enforcing the closed shop? As my lion. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) said, this may be a method of introducing a pre-entry closed shop, although the Bill says that it is not doing that.
4.45 p.m.
I end by asking for answers to four specific questions. First, why do we need a special register at all if the intion is to spread the advantages of trade union negotiating machinery generally through the population? Why not proceed, as we suggest, by amending Clause 57 and the other ordinary Clauses of the Bill?
Second, will the Government spell out the duties as well as the privileges of bodies entered on the special register? I do not ask the Government to go through the Clauses in general terms, but I hope that we shall be told what basic duties these bodies will share with trade unions.
Thirdly, to repeat my earlier question, I ask the Government to name the bodies which have been pressing for this provision. If the Government have not sufficient courage to name them, we are


entitled to know the categories of people who are pressing for this and what their motivation is.
Fourthly, will the Government explain why this special status is being conferred? Is it a mechanism hiding behind the obscure and relatively unknown terms of Royal Charters and letters patent which are not easily accessible to the public? It is possible to look at the Companies Register and get some idea of what a company is doing. One can gain access to its memorandum and articles of association. One can do something of the kind with registered bodies of all kinds. Under the Bill, one can do it with a registered trade union. But what about these bodies on the special register? How does one find what they are about and why they exist?
If we are not provided with specific answers to those questions, I am certain that my right hon. and hon. Friends will reject the new Clause.

Mr. John Page: I support the new Clause, and I welcome my hon. and learned Friend's presentation of it. It appears to deal with a very small group of employed persons. If it is intended mainly to deal with professional bodies, except in the hospital world, the local government world, and so on, not very many people will be covered by it.
It will take a tremendous effort on the part of the Opposition to keep the debate on these three Clauses going until midnight. When there are still so many other parts of the Bill which deserve greater discussion and explanation, it is a pity that so much time should be spent on three narrow Clauses. They could have been dealt with together in two or three hours, giving us further time for the discussion of other points. I do not say that from a party point of view. I merely think that it is a pity that more time was not given for discussion of other matters. However, I imagine that when the right hon. Lady and her hon. Friends discussed the time table Motion, they decided that this was how they wanted to spend the time devoted to Report stage. They are wasting a great deal of time.
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) had to

work very hard. He fell below his normal extremely high standard of debate. The hon. and learned Gentleman has been a 100 per cent. success story in his speeches up to now so far as I am concerned. But this afternoon he dragged in a lot of spurious class-consciousness which he must have been scratching around for over the weekend to try to bring in some party aspect.

Mr. Murray: It is not my special register. It is right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who want a special register.

Mr. Page: No. It is unfortunately the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech. The special register does not have these distinctions.
On a slightly different note, referring specially to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the hon. and learned Member for Leith it might be appropriate to say in the House how much we all hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) will recover from the serious accident in which he was involved on Saturday. We shall look forward to hearing good reports.
The hon. and learned Member for Leith said that he was hoping that the new Industrial Relations Bill would produce egalitarianism and the same for all. That is what the new Clause proposes. There is only one privileged organisation of workers in the Bill: those trade unions which take upon themselves the privileges given by registration. Instead of having an underprivileged group of workers which could not be represented by registered trade unions, the new Clause is providing this special register which will allow this under-privileged group to receive the same treatment as the rest of the organisations of workers which have been dealt with in the Bill.
This business of lower class, middle class and upper class seems good knockabout fun, but it is below the normal standard of the hon. and learned Gentleman's contributions to debates.
Will my hon. and learned Friend, when he winds up or as early as possible, say that the registrar who puts organisations on the special register will expect no lower standards of rules, accountability, balloting for the election of


officers, and so on, than is expected in the registration of other organisations of workers?

The Solicitor-General: indicated assent.

Mr. Page: Provided that we can have that assurance, which the nod from my hon. and learned Friend appears to indicate, I think that this small but important new Clause—important to a small group of people—should be passed on the nod.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) suggested that the Government should name one or two of the bodies and organisations which this secondary register would fit. I am glad that he did. But before getting a reply from the Government I should like to mention one such body.
The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) tried to move an Amendment, many weeks ago now, which we shot down in flames because it did not cover the point. The organisation which I have in mind is U.K.A.P.E. which, under the Clause, would be allowed to register. U.K.A.P.E. is the United Kingdom Association of Professional Engineers. For some time it has been in bitter dispute with D.A.T.A.—the Draughtsmen's and Allied Technicians' Association. D.A.T.A. is often mentioned by hon. Members opposite because it is a very militant Left-wing union which has had a great deal of success in negotiations and in establishing wage claims.
About three months ago U.K.A.P.E. sent a delegation to this House to see Members on this side who had been active in the engineering industry. U.K.A.P.E. were worried that under the Bill, with the 51 per cent. ballot for the sole bargaining unit, it would be virtually put out of existence, because it knew that if people in drawing offices took a ballot as to which union should represent them D.A.T.A. would be the overwhelming choice of 80 or 90 per cent. of the engineering staff—or, where appropriate, they may choose A.S.T.M.S., or another union.
U.K.A.P.E. is only two years old, but it has had great success in recruiting members because it is backed by the bosses who provide the finance for it

to stump the country to recruit members. No doubt the success of U.K.A.P.E. would tend to go without this backing. However, it is not the first union to try to draw members in the engineering industry. There used to be one called the F.M.B.—the Foremen's Mutual Benefit. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) had a Private Member's Bill seeking to have this body put out of existence. It used to be compulsory for any man to join that union who obtained promotion. Before a man was offered promotion to foreman he had to agree to join the F.M.B. and the firm would give him a 5s. a week increase to join, but he could not belong to another union. It was virtually a superannuation scheme which was paid out to foremen without them paying into it. The one condition was that a member could not belong to another union. Such staff unions have been tried in the past. U.K.A.P.E. is a direct descendant of them because it has a "no strike" clause in its rules.
When members of that organisation came to see hon. Members here three months ago they said that their members were keeping the sewage works open. The terrible municipal workers were out on strike fighting for a wage of about £17 a week and bringing the country into all kinds of chaos, but the members of U.K.A.P.E., because of their dedication to duty and the way that they viewed their jobs, were keeping the sewage works open. They asked us to lend our support to them so that their union would not go out of existence. They were so worried that they got the hon. Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) to put down an Amendment which they drew up. The hon. Lady, about 10 to 12 one night, moved that Amendment formally. Unfortunately, she may not have had experience of the engineering industry. The U.K.A.P.E. had written out a very complicated Amendment and it chose the hon. Member for Tynemouth to sponsor it because it had a major dispute in her area. D.A.T.A. refused to work with members of U.K.A.P.E. at Parsons, the argument being that people who belonged to the United Kingdom Association of Professional Engineers were eligible to join D.A.T.A. and there was no reason for them not joining. It was merely a class excuse to form another union. This


leads to a proliferation of unions in industry. So, instead of aiming for one union, which Donovan suggests, we have a situation where unions begin to fragment.
Early in February the hon. Member for Tynemouth was asked not to push her Amendment. The Government spokesman, in effect, said: "Leave it with us and on Report we will bring something back". Much the same was said about the Equity proposals which the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) pushed. He was told that the Government would bring something back, which they did on Monday last week when they brought in the closed shop proposal. The Government said that they would bring something back to look after associations and organisations such as the U.K.A.P.E., and this is what we have today.
Without the Amendment anybody could establish a sole bargaining unit with 51 per cent. of the ballot. In most cases this would be D.A.T.A. But with the secondary register, if a firm wish to recognise a union which has not got 51 per cent. of the ballot but towards which it feels particularly favoured, it can do so under the Amendment. In other words, the firm could say that although the A.E.F. or D.A.T.A. had obtained 80 per cent. of the ballot and it therefore had to recognise them, it also wished to recognise a small, selective union which looked after the bosses, because it was on the special register.
5.0 p.m.
I hope that the Solicitor-General will make it clear that, if a firm wishes to grant recognition, even if only 2 per cent. of the members vote for it, there is nothing to stop the firm doing so. This might seem a good thing, but it puts a tremendous amount of selection in the hands of the firm, which could say, "Two per cent. wish to join the Transport and General Workers' Union. We are not recognising that, and you cannot make us. But if 2 per cent. of you want to join U.K.A.P.E., the bosses' union, on this other professional register, we can recognise that."

Mr. John Page: The hon. Member has produced so many half-truths that I would have to make another speech, much longer than my previous one, to correct

them. But on one point, is he clear that U.K.A.P.E. or any of these other organisations could not register on the special register unless it was independent? He keeps on talking of bosses' unions. If it was, so to speak, a staff association, it would be impossible for it to register.

Mr. Ashton: Yes, but proving independence is very difficult. There would be nothing to stop it registering on the first register, as any union can do. This is our argument. Why do we need this second register at all? The difficulty is that, after it had lost 51 per cent. of the ballot on the first register, it would have no way of saying, "We are different, and we should have a special relationship with the bosses".
The union which I have mentioned is a bosses' union. The people campaigning for membership around the country are highly qualified engineers capable of earning £3,000 to £4,000 minimum. With 8,000 members, they cannot pay the salaries of these people on subscriptions of 2s. 6d. a week. The money just is not there. So someone must be financing it, as someone financed the Rookes v. Barnard case. To give them their brutal name, these are bogus unions.
What concerns us is that loopholes which we might have exploited are being blocked, but other loopholes are being opened for bogus unions to demand a special relationship, because they have a no-strike clause or they do not belong to the T.U.C. or they do not have a conference at which decisions are made democratically. They do not take part in wage negotiations, but are a small, exclusive freemasonry and are demanding special rights.
If the Solicitor-General can convince us that this is not so, we shall be gratified, but we will want to know why the special register is needed if no privilege attaches to it. Why is it needed, unless there are some privileges or favours which can be obtained on it which do not apply to ordinary rank-and-file unions?

Mr. Michael Grylls: The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) talked about the class structure of the different unions or bodies which would seek registration under the Bill. I cannot think that he meant this seriously, although his speech was interesting and attractive to listen to.


It is just not true. The object of the new Clause is to open the privileges of the Bill to a wider membership or wider number of bodies which the people concerned are operating in industry, and this seems a laudable aim. We are trying to get away from any narrow structure of class; this is one of the things about the Clause which I welcome.
The hon. and learned Member asked the Government Front Bench for a comment on the possibility that new chartered bodies in the future would be put on the special register. I thought that he was hoping for the Government to say that no new chartered bodies would be allowed on. This is a foolish request. Surely everyone recognises that, with technology changing so fast, new professional bodies will be created to deal with new techniques and sciences. Why should they be excluded, to the advantage perhaps of older bodies like the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the B.M.A. and so on? Surely it is right to open these provisions wide. I hope that the Government will not give such an assurance.
The hon. and learned Member also asked that the Government should give some names of bodies which they would see as certain candidates for this special register. That would be very difficult, because what the new Clause does is lay down the rights, the gateways through which people can apply, and it would then be left to the Registrar, an independent person, to decide whether they were suitable. I hope that the Government will not be tempted on this.
This is similar to our debates on new Clause 1, which laid down narrow conditions for the closed shop. If people could meet them, they would get the special privileges, and vice versa. If they meet the conditions in this new Clause, they will be eligible for the special register. This is a useful addition to the Bill in the wider context of industry, and I welcome it.

Mr. Palmer: I want to speak about the new Clause and the special register from the point of view of professional and associated engineers. It will be a potential danger in my view to many reputable unions in engineering who have done a vast amount of work in setting up steady and good collective bargaining over many years. In profes-

sional engineering, there are connected with or in membership of the Council of Engineering Institutions about a dozen chartered bodies. The principal ones are the older institutions—the Civils, the Mechanicals and the Electricals.
I have an interest, in that I am a member of the Electricals. Those bodies have always said—this is why I intervened in the Solicitor-General's speech—that their Royal Charters precluded them from taking part in collective bargaining and from exercising trade union functions. Their work is therefore confined to their true purpose, advancing science and technology in their own specialist fields.
Therefore, to look after the collective bargaining interests of professional and non-professional engineers, a number of bodies have grown up over the years such as D.A.T.A., of which my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) is a member, N.A.L.G.O., in local government, and the I.P.C.S., in the Civil Service. There is also my own union in electricity supply—I declare my interest —the Electrical Power Engineers' Association, which organises professional and non-professional engineers and technical staff generally. We have had no competition with the chartered institutions, hitherto, because they have been looking after solely professional, technical and scientific matters and also education and examinations.
If this special register is set up, is it to be said that chartered institutions are to take to themselves trade union bargaining powers, and seek to deal with matters which have been very responsibly dealt with until now by bodies which have concentrated on collective bargaining? That would be extremly unfair to such bodies as the E.P.E.A., I.P.C.S., D.A.T.A. and N.A.L.G.O. I can hardly believe that the chartered institutions wish to do this, but it would be interesting to know whether any chartered engineering institutions have asked for such a Clause as this, and whether they propose, if they go on the special register, to engage, for the first time in their history, apparently, and in defiance of their own Royal Charters, in collective bargaining
It is now the Government's intention that all existing registered trade unions


will automatically by law be placed on the provisional register. Does that mean that the power engineers or local government engineers, will automatically be placed on the normal register and be precluded from the special register, while other bodies can go on? If we leave the chartered institutions out, a limited company union like U.K.A.P.E., a very recently established body, can be given special recognition—

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): The answer to the hon. Gentleman's initial point is that unions recognised at present will go on the provisional register automatically, and after that it will be a matter for the Registrar.

Mr. Palmer: Does not the hon. Gentleman see, then, what an advantage in terms of recruitment there will be for, perhaps, the chartered institutions in some circumstances, or a limited company like the U.K.A.P.E., not being registered already as normal trade unions, to be put in the apparently privileged position of going on a special register? That would be grossly unfair to other bodies which have organised professional engineers for many years—

Mr. John Page: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what difference there is between the privileges of those on the provisional register and those on the special register? The privileges are identical.

Mr. Palmer: Those bodies will get a special advantage in recruitment in my view. The U.K.A.P.E., for instance, which sets out to organise employees, not according to their work but entirely according to their professional qualifications, might gain admittance to the special register and would then, in the matter of recruitment, be attractive to chartered engineers, who for many years have been looked after by other long-established unions.
These Johnny-come-latelys have done none of the hard work of building up over the years sound collective bargaining arrangements, and it will be wrong if they are to be given the advantages of a special register. I can hardly believe

that this will add to the stability of trade unionism in professional engineering.
These points should be cleared up. I certainly want to underline what was said earlier by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray), that we have a right to know what other bodies, apart from the B.M.A. and the Royal College of Nursing, are now anxious for the first time to become collective bargaining organisations. If they do not wish to become collective bargaining organisations, it is hard to see why we need the new Clause at all and if they do then they are unfairly duplicating the work of trade unions that have hitherto specialised in these fields.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: As I intend to abstain from a Division on the new Clause, if one is called, it is only right and fair to my right hon. Friend that I should give my reasons. My abstention is dictated by the fact that the Government have failed to stem the tide of terrorists coming from the Republic into Northern Ireland at present. That being so, I feel that I must abstain from this Division and every other Division—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. The hon. Member must observe at least the subject with which the Bill is concerned. Mr. Loughlin.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: rose—

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) has just made a comment, but the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland. There, the trade unions already have enough disabilities, and will have more in future.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. Mr. Loughlin.

Mr. Loughlin: Will the Solicitor-General make quite clear whether subsection (3,b) of the new Clause applies only to an organisation operating at the present time and before it goes on the register, or whether it will be able to


take part in those activities subsequent to going on the register?
The same question can he asked of paragraph (b) of subsection (4) where one reads
… its activities include the regulation of relations between workers and employers …".
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) will be very valid if, subsequent to their going on a special register, organisations so registered will be able to initiate that kind of activity.

The Solicitor-General: In answer to the central point made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray), I make it entirely clear that there is no intention at all in this provision of creating different classes of trade unionism or anything like that. The motive and object of the exercise is to permit the expansion and growth of trade unionism for all classes, be they white-collar, blue-collar or any other kind of workers, and to enable the organisations that either exist now or will come into existence to continue to expand, and to represent those who wish to be represented by them.
It is in no sense the object of these measures to confine trade unionism. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey (Mr. Grylls) said, the purpose is to extend the scope of trade unionism.
The difference of definition that is made, for example, by Amendments Nos. 60 and 61, is purely to distinguish the two kinds of organisation, so that one can see which of the provisions do not apply.
My right hon. Friend and I have been at pains to make plain to organisations which have made representations about the special register that the only thing special about it is not the kind of person for whom it is intended to cater but the kinds of organisation which happen to be in existence and which require to be accommodated within the provisions of the Bill.
A number of hon. Gentlemen opposite asked what kind of people or organisations it was intended to cater for by these provisions. The organisations which are to qualify must, of course, be independent and be carrying out regulation of relations activities at the time when they apply. An organisation would not qualify

to get on to the special register unless it could show that it was performing those activities at the time.
Next, it must be an organisation consisting of workers, so that the chartered status of the C.B.I. or of a whole range of other bodies which no doubt have charters would not, of itself, entitle them to apply. It must be independent, carrying out these regulations and be an organisation consisting of workers.
Bodies like N.A.L.G.O. were mentioned. Organisations now registered under the 1871 Act are not affected by this. However, if an ordinary trade union seeks to achieve—and, in fact achieves—chartered status, as is possible with some of the organisations of which one can think, then it would not be right for it, when considering whether or not to apply for chartered status, to have to balance the possibility that it might lose its rights to represent workers whom it has heretofore represented as a trade union.
I was asked to name the sort of people and organisations with whom we are concerned. I naturally cannot give a complete chronicled list, but there are two categories. Some are registered as companies now and others as chartered bodies. Those registered as companies which already undertake collective bargaining activities for their members include, for example, the British Medical Association, British Dental Association, Royal College of Midwives and the four associations in the teaching profession: the Association of Headmasters, the Association of Headmistresses, the Association of Assistant Headmasters and the Association of Assistant Headmistresses.
I was asked about the Junior Hospital Doctors Association and said at the time that I thought that it was registerable now as an ordinary trade union. I think I was wrong and that it is a limited company. It would, therefore, come in as a company.
On the one side, therefore, we have organisations such as the B.M.A. and the others in teaching to which I referred, while on the other we have those which cannot register under this legislation because they are chartered, such as the Royal College of Nursing, the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy and the Royal Institute of Chemistry.
The Government feel that when one surveys the scene of collective bargaining as a whole, it would be wrong to require, for example, the Royal College of Nursing—as a chartered body—or the Royal College of Midwives—as a limited company—to cast on one side their chartered status. I know not for how long the Royal College of Nursing has had charter status, but I believe it is over 100 years. To have to transform that would be extremely difficult, and neither body would have the right to claim the bargaining rights and other remedies accorded under the legislation.
The suggestion underlying Amendment No. 238 has been examined by the Government, and it plainly would have been attractive if we could have devised a framework of registration that would not have required the identification of organisations on a special register, but we found that it was not possible to do that. To accept that Amendment would probably go too far in other spheres by admitting organisations with only a marginal interest and an object which might include the organisation of industrial relations. In other words, it would let in too many organisations which could not possibly qualify as trade unions and still, perhaps, would not admit some of the organisations with which we are concerned.
I acknowledge the desirability of trying to avoid this. We have looked for a means of doing so, but have not been able to find one. However, I emphasise again that this is not Grade I registration as opposed to Grade II. It is simply machinery for registering in a different way bodies of a different kind.
The hon. and learned Member for Edinbugh, Leith referred to Clause 141, which, as he said, as drawn, replaces Section 5 of the 1871 Act and the corresponding provisions of the Companies Act so as to preclude the registration of a trade union as a company under these provisions. In other words, we are establishing a new barrier to replace the old one which disappears with the repeal of the 1871 Act.
Amendment No. 99 reads as the hon. and learned Gentleman says it should, and it will have the effect that an organisation of workers registered as a company at the time of the passing of the Bill can stay so only for a period of six months,

whereupon its registration will become void—that is, unless by then it has applied for, and secured, registration on the special register, which, again, will become void if it is refused entry. This is designed to give a period of time during which an organisation can reorganise to go through the new gateway, if it deserves to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) asked whether there was any distinction relating to the obligations imposed on a body on the special register. The answer is, "No". The provisions of Clause 61 and Schedule 3 apply in exactly the same way as they do to an ordinarily registered trade union.
A number of hon. Gentlemen opposite took the opportunity of raising the problems of U.K.A.P.E. in relation to chartered engineers and so on. I do not wish to go too far outside the ambit of the Amendment in explaining this as far as U.K.A.P.E. is concerned. The position of that association is, as I understand it, that it is not registered as a company. It does not have a charter. I know not whether it is now registered under the 1871 Act, but there is no reason why it should not so register, and unless it is registered as a company—I do not know whether it is—this Clause has no provision for U.K.A.P.E., so that it will not give any special status to it.
Although my recollection was not checked by a report, in answer to questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) I said that certain of her points would be dealt with by our Amendments, and some of them are. However, U.K.A.P.E. can register now. Under this legislation it would have the same rights to claim bargaining rights and to organise as any other trade union. It may have differently arranged objectives, and it would obviously depend on how far it got in recruiting members, but that would not alter the position.
If U.K.A.P.E. shows itself to be an independent organisation of workers, it will be entitled to registration and to claim its rights under the Bill. The C.I.R. would then decide to what extent it was appropriate to recognise U.K.A.P.E., D.A.T.A. or any of the other unions which compete with each other for recognition rights in this


sphere. This Clause does not make any difference to them.
The hon. and learned Member for Leith then asked whether we were not enshrining some special closed shop arrangement for chartered bodies. We are not doing that by the Bill. If a chartered body were registered on the special register, it would have the same rights, neither more nor less, jointly with an employer to claim exemption under new Clause No. 1, the closed-shop provisions, that is, so far as an agreement between a special register union and the employer is concerned.
If and in so far as any chartered body is described in emotional language as operating a closed shop now because that is the only way of achieving qualifications to perform in a particular profession, that is something which arises from the role of the chartered body in regulating that profession and not as a matter of industrial relations. The House will recall that some of those professions were the subject of a Report from the Monopolies Commission published last year, in respect of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has required various professional organisations to answer the comments made. But that is outside the scope of this legislation and within the scope of the Monopolies Commission Report which, as I say, is being processed now.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Murray: Do I understand that, whereas ordinary trade unions will have their rules subjected to examination and alteration at the hands of the Registrar, chartered bodies and bodies incorporated by letters patent will not have any such oversight?

The Solicitor-General: I am sorry if I misled the hon. and learned Gentleman. The rules will be subject to the same scrutiny under Schedule 3 and Clause 61, and the chartered organisations or companies will have to comply with the provisions of the Bill. But if and in so far as they have already been the subject of scrutiny by the Monopolies Commission, that scrutiny continues, as I have explained. There will certainly be the same kind of supervision.
The point raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) would take me a long way outside the narrow

scope of this debate. Bodies like the Chartered Mechanical Engineers, the Chartered Electrical Engineers, the Chartered Civil Engineers and so on, would be able to register under these provisions if they could show, in fact, that they were regulating relations between workers and employers, if they could show—as no doubt they could—that they were independent, and if they qualified under the other provisions of the Bill.
Some of them, for example, the Royal College of Nursing, are already doing that. The other chartered bodies mentioned by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central almost certainly are not and, so far as I know—I have not been able to check on them all—the independent engineering chartered bodies have not sought special registration, although, no doubt, they have taken account of what has been going on. But even if they did at some later date begin organising industrial relations, they would still have to conform with their other obligations under their charters and so on.

Mr. Palmer: Will it be possible for a registered trade union at present in the professional field which is going on to the provisional register automatically to leave that register and apply for inclusion on the special register?

The Solicitor-General: I do not think that that is possible. Perhaps I can tell the hon. Gentleman later if I am wrong in my instant reply. If there is a body registered now on the ordinary register under the 1871 Act it would be a body not of the kind with which this Clause is dealing. If it is a chartered body or if it is a limited company, it could not be registered under the 1871 Act, I think, so that it would go on to the ordinary register and could not withdraw and try to come through this gateway.
The position is that no new privileges or rights will be conferred on that kind of body. This gateway is open if that kind of body qualifies under the provisions of the Clause which I have explained.
I apologise for taking a little time to answer the questions, but it is an important provision which should not be misunderstood. I emphasise that this is no special gateway for special status or special privileges. It is designed to


accommodate particular kinds of organisation which are already undertaking trade union functions.

Mr. McNamara: I am sorry to take up this point now, but it will save time later if we deal with it straight away. I have listened with care to what the Solicitor-General has said about the rights and powers of the Registrar being the same. As I understand it, if the Registrar looks into the terms of the charter or letters patent or the memorandum and articles of association and he is satisfied about those, he will register.
Under Clause 64 (4) (b), the Registrar has power to insist upon "any other requirements" as a condition of registration. The subsection refers back to subsection (3), and it is in these terms:
If on any such application the Registrar is satisfied …(b) that the requirements of subsection (3) of this subsection and any other requirements imposed by the Registrar as a condition of registration, have been complied with.
It is hard to see how Clause 64 can be reconciled with the new Clause which we are discussing and the explanation which the Solicitor-General has given.

The Solicitor-General: I can shorten the discussion on a later point by answering that now. It is proposed to remove the words in lines 37 and 38 in Clause 64(4)(b) by an Amendment which has the unique distinction of having attracted the names of both my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle).

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The usual channels?

The Solicitor-General: Nothing to do with the usual channels. It is a springing together of two intellects on a sensible proposition. The hon. Gentleman will see that that is being brought into line with the corresponding provisions of the new Clause, and both special register bodies and ordinary register bodies will have to satisfy the Registrar that their objects and their basic nature are such that they qualify for registration, and thereafter there will be the same powers to see that their rules come in to line with Clause 61 and Schedule 3.

Mr. Heller: I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn

(Mrs. Castle) and the Solicitor-General were not able to spring together with the same intellectual accord on other issues. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had followed that line throughout, we could have dropped the whole Bill and come up with some sensible propositions to deal with industrial relations. None the less, we are glad that one point is accepted, and we are ready to welcome any crumb. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will now seriously consider accepting most of the other Opposition Amendments, so that we may dispense with further discussion today and wrap the whole thing up. I do not, however, think that he will be prepared to go that far.
I cannot accept the argument put by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) that this is a narrow point, that we could dispense with it in a matter of minutes, let it go through on the nod, and pass to something else. That does not accord with our experience in the House. The more one goes into the various Clauses presented to us and the more one examines the Bill, the more one discovers its complexities and the more one finds out what the Government have in mind.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) referred to a question asked in the other place by Lord Janner and replied to by Lord Windlesham, which I had myself quoted in relation to this new Clause. Perhaps I may do the almost unforgiveable and quote what I said on that occasion:
My hon. Friends and I have not yet seen the Amendment, but it is very interesting that this point was made in the other place. We are entitled to know precisely what is the position. If there is to be a special register which allows the professional associations to have the rights or privileges accorded to trade unions, that is tantamount to making trade unionism unlawful for many workers. It will cause a great deal of bitterness among trade unions, especially those which are trying to organise among the professional groups."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1971; Vol. 811, c. 321–2.]
The hon. Gentleman would deny that the object of the Clause is in any way to stop the development of legitimate trade unionism, but it is worth repeating that what he has said is that there will be no special privileges to persons but that there will be something special for the kind of organisations involved.
That is the whole point. When challenged to itemise the organisations involved, the hon. Gentleman mentioned two or three. There are many others. There are the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, the B.M.A. and so on. They have a number of different functions, being chartered companies or possessing letters patent, and at the same time they have a limited industrial relations function as negotiating bodies. Here these bodies will have two functions which trade unions are denied. That puts them into a special category.
It is no good the Government suggesting that they are not in a special category as a result of this provision. I accept that future bodies cannot apply under these terms and will not both be chartered companies and have trade union functions. I understand that that is covered by Amendments Nos. 98 and 99. But the existing bodies will have special privileges. As chartered companies with limited liability, under certain circumstances they could not have the maximum compensation payment imposed upon them, as a trade union can. At the same time, as they will have this special privilege they will be able to apply for the approved closed shop, the agency shop and so on.
If Conservative hon. Members believe that this will in no way stop the extension of legitimate trade unionism into fields now beginning to open up for the trade unions, and that they will not feel bitter about that, they should talk to the trade union leaders concerned. They must know that it is precisely among white-collar workers that there has been a growth in trade unionism in the past 10 years. For example, professional engineers and other groups are now joining legitimate trade unions. Doctors now have the Medical Practitioners Union, and others have now combined with A.S.T.M.S. It could well be that the Clause will block these channels for such organisations. Hon. Members opposite will say that both bodies can apply to be sole bargaining agents. I understand that very well, but the point is that one is a legitimate trade union organisation concerned with wages and conditions and the other has a number of different functions, one of which is the acceptance of members' professional qualifications and so on, which is not entirely the same thing.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The trade union movement has recently had a conference on the Bill, where white-collar workers indicated, through the unions represented there, that after the Bill became law they wanted to register under it. Does the hon. Gentlemen agree with their attitude and agree that they obviously accept the Bill as it is, including special registration?

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman has a genius for introducing red herrings, and trying to get the headlines in his local newspaper on issues that are not being discussed. We are not discussing the Croydon debate. The hon. Gentleman will be able to pursue that matter on Third Reading, when I am certain that a number of comments will be made by Conservative Members about the Croydon decision. If the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends think that that decision was a great victory for the Government, they want to read the small print of the seven resolutions that were passed. It was the very opposite of a victory for the Government. For the first time for a long period we face the position of the trade union movement as a whole not being prepared to co-operate with the Government. Even if some of the unions should register, in other ways they are not prepared to co-operate with the Government. That is not any great advance, as far as I can see.
I reiterate that certain organisations have dual functions, and perhaps a number of functions, because they are chartered under a Royal Charter or are companies. But a trade union does not have the same rights.
If certain professional bodies wish to continue to be professional bodies, to have professional standards, or to be limited companies concerned with those aspects of their existence, they should stick to that, and drop the trade union side and allow the legitimate trade unions to get on with the job of organising professional workers and dealing with their problems on the basis of proper trade union organisation.

Mr. Palmer: Which in some cases they have been doing for 50 years.

Mr. Heffer: That is absolutely true. There are two or three unions connected with the nursing profession, including C.O.H.S.E. and N.U.P.E.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The Royal College has been doing it for many years.

Mr. Heffer: Of course, but other proper, legitimate unions begin to develop amongst professional and white-collar workers when the professional organisations are failing them. That is why such organisations have a growth basis.

The Solicitor-General: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that bodies like the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, and the British Medical Association should not continue to be entitled to organise or represent their members in collective bargaining, and that the field should be left entirely to other unions, which he describes as legitimate trade unions? If it is the Opposition's attitude that bodies like the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives and so on should be excluded from collective bargaining and industrial relations, will the hon. Gentleman please be clear about it?

Mr. Heffer: The hon. and learned Gentleman has deliberately tried to twist what I am saying, as so often happens. I am saying that they should not be in a position of having special privileges. For example, if the Royal College of Nursing wishes to continue legitimately to have nurses under its control, as it were, to negotiate on their behalf, it should accept the role as a trade union and do it as a trade union. It should not have a privilege above other organisations also concerned with the organisation of those workers and dealing with their negotiations. I am not saying any more than that.
The hon. Member for Harrow, West suggested that we should not spend a whole day on the three Clauses. I know that he was trying to suggest that the Opposition were making unnecessary

speeches, lengthening them, and so on. That is not the position at all, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. We should have liked a serious examination of each Clause, and to examine seriously and discuss and vote upon all our Amendments and the Government Amendments. We have not had that opportunity, because we have been labouring all the way through under a guillotine Motion. Its very existence has made it extremely difficult for us to have serious discussions on the parts of the Bill we feel to be of the utmost importance. It has been difficult all the way through to know exactly how to deal with the Bill, to get the best out of each situation and have at least some discussion on fundamental parts. We shall never be able to achieve that, and whole sections will have gone through without any proper examination. That is an absolute disgrace. The full responsibility lies on the Government.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): Could the hon. Gentleman tell the House what Bill under his Government or any other has had a longer time in Committee and on Report than this?

Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that this is one of the most fundamental and important Bills we have had, affecting the working life of every worker. Therefore, it is clear that it should have been properly examined, particularly the part establishing the courts. It has not been examined, and unfortunately cannot be examined.
As the case presented for the Clause has not answered the four important questions put by my hon. Friend, we cannot give it a Second Reading.

Question put, 'That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 237.

Division No. 262.]
AYES
[5.55 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Braine, Bernard


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Benyon, W.
Bray, Ronald


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Brinton, Sir Tatton


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Biffen, John
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Biggs-Davison, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Atkins, Humphrey
Blaker, Peter
Bruce-Gardyne, J.


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Bryan, Paul


Balniel, Lord
Body, Richard
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)


Batsford, Brian
Boscawen, Robert
Buck, Antony


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bossom, Sir Clive
Bullus, Sir Eric


Bell, Ronald
Bowden, Andrew
Burden, F. A.


Bennett, Sir Frederick (Torquay)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)




Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Holt, Miss Mary
Pink, R. Bonner


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hordern, Peter
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cary, Sir Robert
Hornby, Richard
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Chapman, Sydney
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Howe, Hn, Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Pym, Rt. Hn, Francis


Clark, William (Surney, E.)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Raison, Timothy


Clegg, Walter
Hunt, John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Cockeram, Eric
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Cooke, Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Coombs, Derek
James, David
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Cooper, A. E.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Cordle, John
Jesset, Toby
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cormack, Patrick
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Costain, A. P.
Jopling, Michael
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Critchley, Julian
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Crouch, David
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Rodgiers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kershaw, Anthony
Rost, Peter


d'Avigdor-GoIdsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Royle, Anthony


Dean, Paul
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kinsey, J. R.
St. John-Stevas, Norman,


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kirk, Peter
Scott, Nicholas


Dixon, Piers
Kitson, Timothy
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Sharples, Richard


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Knox, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lambton, Antony
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Dykes, Hugh
Lane, David
Simeons, Charles


Eden, Sir John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sinclair, Sir George


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Skeet, T. H. H.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Le Merchant, Spencer
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Emery, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Soref, Harold


Eyre, Reginald
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Speed, Keith


Farr, John
Longden, Gilbert
Spence, John


Fell, Anthony
Loveridge, John
Sproat, Iain


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
MacArthur, Ian
Stainton, Keith


Fidler, Michael
McCrindle, R. A.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McLaren, Martin
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stokes, John


Foster, Sir John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Fowler, Norman
Maddan, Martin
Sutcliffe, John


Fox, Marcus
Madel, David
Tapsell, Peter


Fry, Peter
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Gardner, Edward
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Gibson-Watt, David
Maude, Angus
Tebbit, Norman


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Temple, John M.


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mawby, Ray
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, John stradling (Monmouth)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Goodhart, Philip
Miscampbell, Norman
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Goodhew, Victor
Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Tilney, John


Gorst, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Gower, Raymond
Moate, Roger
Trew, Peter


Gray, Hamish
Money, Ernie
Tugendhat, Christopher


Green, Alan
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Grieve, Percy
Monro, Hector
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Montgomery, Fergus
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
More, Jasper
Vickers, Dame Joan


Grylls, Michael
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Waddington, David


Gummer, Selwyn
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Wall, Patrick


Gurden, Harold
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walters, Dennis


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mudd, David
Ward, Dame Irene


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Murton, Oscar
Warren, Kenneth


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Weatherill, Bernard


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Neave, Atrey
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Normanton, Tom
Wiggin, Jerry


Havers, Michael
Nott, John
Wilkinson, John


Hawkins, Paul
Onslow, Cranky
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hay, John
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Hayhoe, Barney
Osborn, John
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Hicks, Robert
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Worsley, Marcus


Higgins, Terence L.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Hiley, Joseph
Pardoe, John



Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Percival, Ian
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


Holland, Philip
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Mr. Hugh Rossi.







NOES


Abse, Leo
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Murray, Ronald King


Allen, Scholefield
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Ogden, Eric


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Hamling, William
O'Halloran, Michael


Armstrong, Ernest
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
O'Malley, Brian


Ashton, Joe
Hardy, Peter
Orbach, Maurice


Atkinson, Norman
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orme, Stanley


Bagier, Gordon A. T,
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Oswald, Thomas


Barnes, Michael
Hattersley, Roy
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Beaney, Alan
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Palmer, Arthur


Bennet, James (Glasgow, Bridgton)
Heffer, Eric S.
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Bidwell, Sydney
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurie


Bishop, E. S.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Huckfield, Leslie
Pendry, Tom


Booth, Albert
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pentland, Norman


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Perry, Ernest G.


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Prescott, John


Buchan, Norman
Hunter, Adam
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur(Edge Hill)
Probert, Arthur


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Janner, Greville
Rankin, John


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cant, R. B.
dager, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Carmichael, Neil
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
John, Brynmor
Richard, Ivor


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W. Ham, S.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Roper, John


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Rose, Paul B.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kaufman, Gerald
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Cox, Thomas, (Wandsworth, C.)
Kelley, Richard
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kerr, Russell
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Cronin, John
Kinnock, Neil
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lambie, David
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Lamond, James
Sillars, James


Dalyell, Tam
Latham, Arthur
Silverman, Julius


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Lawson, George
Skinner, Dennis


Davidson, Arthur
Leadbitter, Ted
Small, William


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Leonard, Dick
Spearing, Nigel


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Spriggs, Leslie


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Stallard, A. W.


Deakins, Eric
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Delargy, H. J.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lipton, Marcus
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Dempsey, James
Lomas, Kenneth
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Doig, Peter
Loughlin, Charles
Strang, Gavin


Dormand, J. D.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Swain, Thomas


Driberg, Tom
McBride, Neil
Taverne, Dick


Duffy, A. E. P.
McCartney, Hugh
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Dunn, James A.
McElhone, Frank
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Eadie, Alex
McGuire, Michael
Tinn, James


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Tomney Frank


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackie, John
Torney, Tom


Ellis, Tom
Mackintosh, John P.
Tuck, Raphael


English, Michael
Maclennan, Robert
Urwin, T. W.


Evans, Fred
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wainwright, Edwin


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
MacPherson, Malcolm
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham, Ladywood)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wallace, George


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marks, Kenneth
Watkins, David


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marquand, David
Weitzman, David


Foley, Maurice
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Wellbeloved, James


Foot, Michael
Meacher, Michael
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Forrester, John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Whitehead, Phillip


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mendelson, John
Whitlock, William


Freeson, Reginald
Millan, Bruce
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Garrett, W. E,
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Ginsburg, David
Molloy, William
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Golding, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wilson, William, (Coventry, S.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)



Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Charles, R. (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Moyle, Roland
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Clause accordingly read a Second time.

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move Amendment No. (lllll) to the proposed Clause, in line 9, leave out 'whether'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): With this we can also discuss Amendment No. (mmmmm), in line 9, leave out 'or after', also standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), and the names of her hon. Friends.

Mr. Fraser: Earlier, the Solicitor-General said that the special register was designed to suit particular organisations which were now registered under the Companies Act and which had Royal Charters. I still do not think that the Government have given any satisfactory explanation to the House as to why there should be a distinction between professional organisations and trade unions as generally understood by most of society. It leaves us with a rather strange situation. No body is going to get on the special register unless already registered as a company under the Companies Act, 1948, or unless it subsequently obtains a Royal Charter. Royal Charters are fairly rare and it seems extraordinary that the Government should create this esoteric circle of special organisations which have what I regard as class distinction from trade unions and other organisations of workers.
Why is this done? The Government have already robbed trade unions which do not register of advantages and facilities which they possess at the moment. They have perpetuated the provision of the Companies Act and of the Trades Union Act, 1871, that a trade union may not register as a company. They have given no explanation why that should be perpetuated. The situation has its roots in the 19th century but if it is to be re-enacted and reinforced by this Bill, we deserve an explanation.
One can take it as a matter of course that trade unions are excluded from obtaining Royal Charters. Therefore, we have the situation where a body can only get on the special register if it is an organisation created after the Bill has been passed or it gets a Royal Charter. This leaves a tremendous gap. By definition, organisations which come into existence after the Bill becomes law and whose principle and only objective is not

the organisation or relations between workers and employers—for instance, if they were formed after the Bill becomes law, or are organisations of screen writers, television writers, people who do orchestral arranging for films, and so on, whose members may be self-employed but which still have to regulate relations between workers and employers—cannot get on the special register unless they get a Royal Charter, and it is unlikely that many of them will. Neither can they register as trade unions, because the definition excludes them. There is, therefore, a gap.
We do not say that we should amend the provisions of the special register, but that there should be a broad enough definition of "organisation of workers" to embrace all people whose objective is to regulate terms and conditions of employment in the broadest sense. This would include workers by definition in the Bill as well as employees. The definition of a worker is rather wider than the definition of an employee. First, there is a gap for organisations which come into existence after the passing of the Bill. The Government propose this escape hatch, which is the possible granting of a Royal Charter or letters patent to an organisation after the passing of the Bill. This is absolutely disgraceful.
The grant of a Royal Charter is not controlled by Parliament except by way of a censure Motion and having a debate in the House. There are no statutory provisions governing in detail the grant of a charter. It is a question of the exercise of the Royal Prerogative which is exercised on the advice of the Government. The Government are reserving to themselves a wider discretion about who should and who should not get a charter and are hiding behind the Royal Prerogative in the exercise of their discretion.
Why would the Government be willing to grant a Royal Charter to a body like the Royal College of Nursing and wish to rob the Trades Union Congress of the rights and privileges which it now exercises? Because its constituent members will not all be registered as trade unions, the Trades Union Congress cannot exist as a trade union. But surely the T.U.C. does as much for the public good—and that is one of the conditions in the granting of a Royal Charter—and exercises as


much interest in the future of this country by its contributions to economic and social thinking as other organisations which will be able to get a Royal Charter. Why the class distinction?

Mr. Raymond Gower: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that in the past the T.U.C. could have been accurately described as a trade union? There is nothing in its history or constitution which is remotely like anything which exists in the history or constitution of an individual trade union. It has been something fundamentally different. It has been bigger and more variegated in its constitutional powers. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should want to make it a mere trade union.

Mr. Fraser: I think I am right in saying that the T.U.C. is a trade union.

Mr. Gower: Not in that sense.

Mr. Fraser: I believe that it is registered under the 1871 Act and therefore I hope that the House will excuse me for describing it as a trade union. It could be a trade union by definition under the Bill, because "trade union" includes not only the lower-tier organisation where the members are workers, but the higher-tier organisation where there are federations of trade unions. There is a distinction drawn between certain professional bodies which get their Royal Charters by the exercise of discretion and the Royal Prerogative and a denial of status to other organisations like the T.U.C. which have as much part to play in the public good and have as long and respectable histories as other organisations. We are against the Government's proposal for that reason and also because it involves the exercise of discretion.
Why do the Government wish to preserve the right to grant privileges and facilities, and burdens, under the Bill and the right to register as a trade union in a different way? The answer lies in something said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray), namely, that there is an element of the works canteen philosophy about this provision: the white-collar workers sit at one end of the table and the blue-collar workers sit at the other;

the professional organisations have one status and the workers have another.
The thinking behind this shakes the very roots of the Conservative Party. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite fear the extension of trade unionism. They pay lip service to trade unionism and say that they want it to be encouraged and yet they put in the Bill a provision to the effect that everybody has the right not to belong to a trade union. They know the reality of recruitment and that while it may not affect existing and well-established trade unions it could prevent the extension of trade unions. That is the reason for the provisions of Clause 5. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite are afraid of the spread of trade unionism.
6.15 p.m.
The thing which frightens the Conservative capitalist view of society is that even highly paid people like those who work in the banks and the teaching profession and those in the higher echelons of society have suddenly realised that they are identified not with the shareholders but with a different kind of interest. When people at the top of every large public company or profession realise that they are identified more with the workers than with the owners of industry and the people who own the share capital we can have a peaceful revolution. When that happens people will be able to take over and run society for themselves.
That is what right hon. and hon. Members opposite are afraid of. That is why they wish to preserve the respectability of the Royal Charter and to continue the mythology that certain people in society—and this can be seen among nursing sisters and matrons—will identify themselves more with institutions and the establishment. This is illustrated by the condemnation that we have seen on television and elsewhere of nurses carrying banners asking for more pay. We know the mentality which favours the Conservative Party. It wants to preserve that mentality and that is why it wants to preserve the discretion to grant Royal Charters to some organisations.

Mr. R. Carr: Does it occur to the hon. Gentleman that we might also wish to preserve the rights and wishes of the majority of nurses, for example?

Mr. Fraser: I recognised that in the earlier part of my speech. There is no reason why the Bill should not be so drafted that the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Association and trade unions are treated in exactly the same way. The aim of the Opposition is to have a unified approach. The Government's aim is to divide, because by dividing they hope to continue to rule. They will fail.

Mr. Stanley Orme: The new Clause and the intention behind it highlight the divisive nature of the Government.
The Conservative Party and the Secretary of State talk about wanting to remove class barriers. But this Clause is a class Clause. It divides certain people in the professional classes from the working class. The T.U.C. and the trade unions are moving the other way. They are encouraging white collar workers to come under the umbrella of the T.U.C. Teachers and members of N.A.L.G.O. have broadened the base of trade unionism. It is this broadening, of the base which attacks the class structure, but the Government are trying to solidify that structure.
The Government are trying to create two classes. One is meant to be the impeccable class—the doctors, certain sections of the nursing profession and certain chartered organisations which have the benefit of the Royal Charter. This is a class issue. The new Clause shows up the hypocrisy of registration. If registration was meant to be the helpful factor which the Government say it is, and if it is meant to assist the trade union movement, why is it necessary to have special registration for special people? Why must we maintain these divisions? As my hon. Friend has said, people are increasingly joining the trade union movement, many of them professional people.
In an area where I used to work near my constituency there was a merger between the Thorn Electrical Company and the Record Electric Company in the Broadheath/Altrincham area of Cheshire. There were wholesale redundancies, and one of the first people to go was the previous managing director—he was asked to go within an hour. This is the atmosphere in industry today; there is

no security. That is why increasingly in the banking profession and in other middle echelons of industry people are coming into the trade union movement, not into company unions but into independent organisations like Mr. Clive Jenkins's union.

Mr. Ray Carter: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are laying the foundations for the demarcation disputes of the latter half of this century by the introduction of this divisive Measure?

Mr. Orme: Absolutely, and this is what many of us who have spent a lifetime in industry are trying to get rid of. One of the main criticisms of British society today is the class divisions which still exist. We want to get rid of them, but the Minister is emphasising and underwriting them by having a special register.

Mr. R. Carr: The hon. Gentleman is saying that we should prevent bodies like the Royal College of Nursing from continuing with activities which they engage in today. All the new Clause is doing is enabling them to continue in the future to do what they are doing today. We are not preventing the unionisation of nurses.

Mr. Orme: No, and we welcome it. We also welcome the change of attitude within the nursing profession which we saw when the nurses were pressing their wage claim. I hope to see the nursing profession affiliated to the T.U.C.—and the medical profession. I argue that chartered organisations should also be affiliated to the T.U.C. To have a special register only serves to highlight the impossibility of the Bill and the contradictions inherent within it.
I belong to a craft union which has been in existence for 130 or 140 years. Craftsmen feel that they are equally as entitled to distinction as organisations incorporated by charter, or anybody else. I do not see the need for this division, which will only create a heirarchy. The Amendment has highlighted the idiotic situation we are being placed in.

The Solicitor-General: The Amendment and the way it has been supported, particularly by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), cause one distress


and anguish that something of this kind should be regarded as part of a class conspiracy. That is so remote from the truth and so absurd that, had it not been uttered by the hon. Member, one would scarcely have imagined it possible. The object of the exercise is entirely the opposite of what he suggests.
I will deal first with the points made by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser). After the passing of the Bill there will be no gate in the way of new organisations of workers getting on to the register. A new organisation will be able to find its way on to the register through the ordinary provisions, including a new trade union of workers as well as a trade union of employees. This would include organisations such as the writers he was speaking about, because the definition of "worker" is wide enough for that. There will be no special gateway for chartered bodies after the passing of the Bill. For a body to come on to the special register it must be engaged in the organising of workers, it must be independent and it must comply with the provisions of Clause 61 and Schedule 3. There is no special privileged way through. These organisations will have to measure up to exactly the same standards.
The hon. Member for Salford, West asks why this is necessary. It is necessary to prevent the division of the collective bargaining pattern and to prevent the exclusion of certain organisations which are now active in the field from the role of collective bargaining. If we did not have these special provisions we should be excluding such bodies as the R.C.N. as a collective bargaining agency from the field where the new recognition provisions and so on will apply. It is to maintain the breadth of that field and to ensure that we are not dividing the sheep from the goats that these provisions are introduced.

Mr. Orme: But why cannot these organisations go on the other register—or is it that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to subject these organisations to the rigours he will subject the rest of the trade unions to?

The Solicitor-General: Indeed, I want to subject them to exactly the same rigours. That is why I explained a moment ago and also in the last debate

that the provisions of Clause 61 and Schedule 3 will apply in exactly the same way as they do to any other organisation. The trade unions already registered under the 1871 Act will not be exposed to rigours different from the ones to which these organisations will be exposed. There will be automatic transfer to the provisional register and later to the final register. We want to apply the same pattern for well-established bargaining bodies such as the ones we have been talking about. We do not want these organisations to suffer an upheaval any more than other trade unions. Of course, they will have to comply with Clause 61, their rules will have to be in order and they will have to comply with Schedule 3, but they will not have to transform their entire organisation, tear up their charters and abandon their long-standing method of organisation provided they comply with all the other provisions and qualify as a collective bargaining organisation.
The mere fact that an organisation is a chartered organisation gives it no special immunity. It exempts it from none of the obligations under the Bill. The concept of a charter is not confined to professional organisations. The existence of a charter qualifying under these provisions does not give the Registrar, 'the Crown or anyone else any greater discretion than in respect of a registered trade union, because the provisions of Clause 61 and Schedule 3 and all the other provisions, apart from the accountancy ones which are separately provided for, will still have to be complied with by the chartered organisation.

Mr. John Fraser: If the hon. and learned Gentleman follows the Government's strategy through, under Clause 63 a federation of workers' organisations cannot be registered unless all its constituent organisations are also registered trade unions. Does he not realise that, if that strategy were followed through, no organisation on the special register could become affiliated to the T.U.C. if it registered, because that would destroy the conditions of its registration?

6.30 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I will check that and look at it a little further. I do not think that that is right. But I will see how those two provisions inter-operate.
In the context of the matter which we are debating, I emphasise that the possession of the charter does not give any kind of distinction. The same kinds of obligation will have to be complied with.
Several hon. Members opposite have asserted that we are creating and perpetuating two kinds or classes of organisation. I answer that by saying that there are already in existence a number of professional organisations which are either registered or are eligible for registration as an ordinary trade union, bodies such as the Regional Hospitals' Consultants and Specialists Association, the Association of University Teachers, the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, and a number of others of that kind, which are not registered as companies, are not in possession of Royal Charters, and would, therefore, have to register on the ordinary register as trade unions.
That points to the absurdity of the argument that we are separating on some class basis one kind of organisation from another. The only object of these provisions is to ensure that we do not exclude from the general provisions of the Bill existing organisations of the kind that we have been discussing. One does not want to exclude the possibility of other organisations, perhaps now registered as trade unions, acquiring a chartered status and moving over to the register. One can think of many organisations which might choose to apply for chartered status. There is nothing wrong in that. If they are representing their members for collective bargaining, they have every right to be included in this register in this way.
I emphasise as plainly as I can that the suggestion that this inclusion is a divisive exercise is to pursue the fanciful to the extreme. The intention is to ensure that the field is unified and open to all those organisations which are now at work in it and which would continue, if they wished, to be so, and that is all.

Mrs. Castle: The Government are playing this important innovation in the Bill in a very downbeat way. I must tell the Solicitor-General, who, as usual, is not listening to the Opposition Front Bench wind-up speech, that that is the moment when we suspect the Government's motives most. When he starts giving voice to his moral anguish about our sinister-mindedness, that is the moment when I

reach for my bullet-proof vest. It is incumbent on the Government to prove that the setting up of this special and separate register is unavoidable. Until they do that, they cannot complain if we believe that there is more behind this move than the very innocent arguments which the Solicitor-General has just given us.
Our complaint is that we have not been given any reasons why this special register is not just convenient but unavoidable. Indeed, the Solicitor-General used the word earlier that it would be "inconvenient" to ask these bodies to reconstitute themselves so as to bring them under the same law as everybody else.
In an issue of this importance, we have no right to talk about inconvenience. We are left with the view that, at the very best, the Government are trying to save from inconvenience special groups for which they have a soft spot, and at worst, that they are giving them privileges.
When I think not of the inconvenience that will be put on the trade union movement but of the legal restrictions and penalties, for the Government to use the inconvenience argument as the justification for a special register proves what my hon. Friends have been saying about the Government's no doubt subconscious class reactions in industrial relations.
In subsection (2) of new Clause 8 we are told that the special register is to be open to only two groups. First, it is to be open to companies registered under the Companies Act before the passing of the Bill. That is where we get the inconvience argument. For the future, we are told that no more limited companies ought to be allowed to register under this special register. Second, we are told that the other group which can register on the special register is an organisation incorporated under charter
…before or after the passing of this Act.
In putting down the Amendments, we have asked, "Why the distinction?" We have not had a satisfactory reply. We believe that this distinction, this subsection, makes an already phoney and dubious position worse.
Let us first take the argument of the Government about the need of limited companies to have a special register. We are told that the innocent, only reason for putting them on a special register is


that a limited company cannot be registered as a trade union. It is true that that applied under the 1871 Act. It applies now under that Act. But why do the Government deliberately go out of their way to perpetuate it, in Clause 141, when the Government's whole aim is to enable limited companies like the B.M.A. to act like trade unions with impunity? If a trade union cannot and ought not to be allowed by law to be a limited company, why allow a limited company to be a trade union? It is a two-way argument. That is what we are complaining about. Why should the B.M.A. be allowed to have its cake and eat it? If it wants to be registered as a trade union under the Bill, why should it not reconstitute itself as a body other than a company?
In renewing the provisions of the 1871 Act, in Clause 141 the Government say that they believe that trade unions should not be limited companies. Therefore, by definition, limited companies should not be trade unions. Why, then, are we setting up a special register to enable them to be trade unions called under a different name? There is no logic in it.
Either the B.M.A. should not be allowed to operate both as a limited company and as a trade union called under another name, thanks to the special register, or, if that is too inconvenient, as the hon. and learned Gentleman put it, it should be asked to reconstitute itself. Why give us Clause 141? Why not allow a trade union to be a company limited by guarantee, because that is what the B.M.A. is?
We have been given no reason. It is just assumed that somehow a device for enabling a body which is not supposed to be a trade union to act as one is right. Why? We have not begun to have an answer. It is not fanciful to say to the Government that if they want to make it possible for some people to act as both, they should allow a trade union to act as a company limited by guarantee. The Government are abandoning a long tradition of not having the incorporation of trade unions. I do not think that the case for incorporating trade unions is established, but I do not think that the case for the special register is established.
All that we are asking for is equality of treatment. It is one of the curses of our industrial relations system today that too many people such as right hon. and hon. Members opposite instinctively approach certain sections of our community with bias and believe that those sections must put up with anything that the Government put on the Statute Book, however inconvenient it is and however disastrous it is to those sections in their organised life. But for a body like the B.M.A. there must be some device to enable it to continue without inconvenience any of the activities that it wants to pursue.
The Government are giving a total carte blanche for organisations set up by charter. The Government go out of their way to ensure that such organisations will qualify for the special register, not only if they exist at present, but when they come to exist in the future. There is not even the limitation which is put upon the future limited company.
The case for special treatment of chartered bodies has not been proved. No serious attempt has been made to prove it. Is it true that the charters of various bodies prohibit them from having negotiations among their objects? Perhaps their charters prohibit them from having negotiations about terms and conditions as their principal object; we can understand that. If that is the difficulty, let us, in the pursuit of true equality, amend Clause 57 and say that an organisation of workers shall not have to have this as one of its principal objects.

Mr. Gower: Does the right hon. Lady recognise that in some cases the nature of these bodies has been reflected by the emergence of trade unions in the same field? That the B.M.A. is not primarily a trade union in the sense that we have always understood has been emphasised by the fact that bodies such as the Medical Practitioners' Union and a Socialist medical body have emerged which are more exactly trade unions. Does not this suggest some difference in the nature of these bodies from the narrow or more orthodox sense of trade union as we have always understood it?

Mrs. Castle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because he has very beautifully underlined our case. This is just what we fear; namely,


that it is the emergence in the negotiating field of strong rivals in the form of genuine trade unions that is now making the B.M.A. very anxious to qualify as a trade union without adapting itself in any way to fit the normal register under the Bill.

Mr. Orme: Does my right hon. Friend agree, after what we saw last summer, that one would not readily deny that one of the principal objects of the B.M.A. was to fight for trade union rights, wages and conditions?

6.45 p.m.

Mrs. Castle: Certainly. There is a later Amendment which will enable us to illustrate my hon. Friend's point with some vividness. But the B.M.A. is apparently to go on the special register as a limited company, not as a chartered body.
If it is incompatible with their charters for these bodies to have as their principal object the securing of better terms and conditions for their members and bargaining, but we know that that is an activity that they engage in, we can equalise the situation and remove the necessity for a special register by amending Clause 57 so that it would read
and is an organisation whose objects include the regulation of relations between workers
and not "whose principal objects include". No serious answer has been advanced against this.
The Solicitor-General is once again engaged in happy private conversation while we on this side talk to ourselves. But we have got used to it. We know that the Report stage is largely irrelevant to hon. Members opposite, but we pay the Solicitor-General the courtesy of listening to him carefully.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that if we took "principal" out of Clause 57, it would widen the definition of an organisation too much and large numbers of bodies could qualify for registration under the Bill. Most bodies that I know are trying to find ways of not registering. I cannot see organisations that are not genuinely concerned with the regulation of relation between workers running to register under an Act in accordance with which they can be mulcted for damages of up to £100,000.

It is a ridiculous argument. Nobody will register and put themselves within the confines of this tight legal framework unless it is by definition earnestly concerned with the regulation of relations between workers and cannot avoid registering to discharge its functions properly.
In moving the Clause, the Solicitor-General said that there were bodies whose charters prohibited them from acting as trade unions and they had to be helped by being put on the special register. If their charters were given to them on the understanding that they did not behave as trade unions, why are the Government seeking to legalise what is contrary to the charters of these bodies?
The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot say, "But there are chartered bodies which want to behave like trade unions although they are not supposed to. We will stop everybody else from doing something they are not supposed to do, under dire penalties, but we will not stop chartered bodies. Although their charters prohibit them from acting in a certain way, we will make it possible for them both to have their charters and to behave like trade unions, because we will set up a special register and put them on it and tell them. 'You are not registered trade unions'." It is a nice little bit of face-saving to enable the purposes of charters to be circumvented.
We believe that the carte blanche provision for the future which is contained in subsection (2) is wrong. Either the charters of these bodies enable them and entitle them to behave like trade unions, in which case they should be registered under the Bill generally like every other trade union, or their charters do not so entitle them, in which case they had better face the facts and stop trying to behave like trade unions.

Mr. R. Carr: Did the right hon. Lady take that view about the Royal College of Nursing when she was in office? Did she try to stop the College from trying to do what it is trying to do at the moment?

Mrs. Castle: The right hon. Gentleman cannot ride away on that one. It was he who introduced the absurd legal web that he is trying to spin round every organisation. This problem arose only


when he made this absurd attempt to put everybody into a legal straitjacket.

Mr. R. Carr: The charter of the Royal College of Nursing was the same in the days of the right hon. Lady as it is today, and so if the College is acting contrary to its charter today it was also acting contrary to its charter in her day.

Mrs. Castle: But I never said that in order to enable it to negotiate it had to register. I never said that in order to enable it to conduct its normal bargaining it had to observe this rule and that Clause. It is the right hon. Gentleman who has led the Royal College of Nursing into this mess, and not me. It will not do for him now to try—as lie always tries—to ride away in the most demagogic way of almost any Minister by saying, "Look at the wicked Opposition! They are trying to stop the Royal College of Nursing from negotiating." We are not doing anything of the kind. We are saying that there is a simple way out of this dilemma, which is to stop this compulsory registration.
Because the Government have created these difficulties by setting up compulsory registration under the terms and conditions laid down in the Bill the Royal College of Nursing and everybody else must realise that their job is to resist the Bill and not to say, "We are not going to change our functions. You have to find a way, Mr. Secretary of State, to help us to have the best of both worlds in order that you can carry forward successfully a Bill that gives the ordinary trade union the worst of all worlds." That is the distinction, and that is why we say that there is a difference of treatment here that has not been justified.
We want to leave these bodies free to negotiate if they want to, but we say that if they are to be free the trade union movement must also be free, on the same terms. The Government must legislate alike, or not legislate at all. That is why we shall vote on the Amendment.

Mr. Gower: It is remarkable how the Opposition seem to have got hold of a very small doubt and blown it up into a tremendous fear. They first suggested that this special register was a device to prevent these bodies coming within the scope of the Bill, but when my right hon.

Friend explained that its purpose was just the opposite—namely, to bring them within the scope of the Bill—they criticised him on entirely different grounds.
I should have thought that there were historical reasons why these bodies have tended to be somewhat different in character from other bodies which operate solely as trade unions. There is nothing wrong in that. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) is speaking as though there was something reprehensible in the fact that these bodies are different in type and character. It may be that many of the objectives that they have accumulated over the years are analogous to those of trade unions, but it is fairly obvious that others are quite different in kind and type.
These are professional bodies, of a wider character—not a better or superior character, but a different character. There is nothing wrong with that. I would have hoped that hon. Members on both sides of the House would see some virtue in having variety in our industrial and economic life. These bodies have usually made a wonderful contribution to that life, in their own terms. For the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) to suggest that they are somehow a means of creating two nations is utter tommyrot. State registered nurses and members of the Royal College of Nursing come from all kinds of homes.
We are not talking about two nations—one of workers and one of privileged people. [Interruption.] That is what the hon. Member for Salford, West says. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Burnley was here at the time, but the hon. Member for Salford, West spoke as if, by providing for the continued existence of the Royal College of Nursing, the B.M.A. and such bodies, we were trying to perpetuate some class division. I have never heard anything more fatuous or ridiculous.
These are bodies of a slightly different character, and they take justifiable pride in that character. They do not contend that they are better than trade unions but they believe that they have slightly different functions, which include the function of negotiation. It is right that such bodies should be incorporated in this way. I see no reason for the ridiculous fears expressed by hon. Members opposite.

Question put, That the Amendment be made to the proposed Clause:—

The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 281.

Division No. 263.]
AYES
[6.55 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Molloy, William


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gourlay, Harry
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Allen, Scholefield
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Armstrong, Ernest
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Ashley, Jack
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Ashton, Joe
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Murray, R. K.


Atkinson, Norman
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Ogden, Eric


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hamling, William
O'Halloran, Michael


Barnes, Michael
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
O'Malley, Brian


Beaney, Alan
Hardy, Peter
Orbach, Maurice


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orme, Stanley


Bidwell, Sydney
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Oswald, Thomas


Bishop, E. S,
Hattersley, Roy
Palmer, Arthur


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Heffer, Eric S.
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Booth, Albert
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurie


Bottomley, Rt, Hn. Arthur
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pendry, Tom


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pentland, Norman


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hunter, Adam
Prescott, John


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Cant, R. B.
Janner, Greville
Probert, Arthur


Carmichael, Neil
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rankin, John


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H' b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
John, Brynmor
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Richard, Ivor


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Roper, John


Crawshaw, Richard
Kaufman, Gerald



Cronin, John
Kelley, Richard
Rose, Paul B.


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Kerr, Russell
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Kinnock, Neil
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Dalyefl, Tam
Lambie, David
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Darling, Rt Hn. George
Lamond, James
Short, Mrs. Renee (W'hampton, N. E.)


Davidson, Arthur
Latham, Arthur
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Lawson, George
Sillars, James


Davies, G. Elfred (Rhondda, E.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Silverman, Julius


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Leonard, Dick
Small, William


Davis, S. Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Deakins, Eric
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Spearing, Nigel


Delargy, H. J.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stallard, A. W.


Dempsey, James
Lipton, Marcus
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Doig, Peter
Lomas, Kenneth
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Dormand, J. D.
Loughlin, Charles
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lyon, Alexander, W. (York)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Strang, Gavin


Driberg, Tom
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Duffy, A. E. P.
McBride, Neil
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dunnett, Jack
McCartney, Hugh
Swain, Thomas


Eadie, Alex
McElhone, Frank
Taverne, Dick


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McGuire, Michael
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, w.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Ellis, Tom
Mackie, John
Thomson Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


English, Michael
Mackintosh, John P.
Tinn, James


Evans, Fred
Maclennan, Robert
Tomney, Frank


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Torney, Thomas


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Tuck, Raphael


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Urwin, T. W.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Foley, Maurice
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Foot, Michael
Marquand, David
Wallace, George


Forrester, John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Watkins, David


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Meacher, Michael
Weitzman, David


Freeson, Reginald
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Garrett, W. E.
Mendelson, John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Millan, Bruce
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Ginsburg, David
Miller, Dr. M. 8.
Whitehead, Phillip


Golding, John
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Whitlock, William




Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet
Longden, Gilbert


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fortescue, Tim
Loveridge, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Foster, Sir John
MacArthur, Ian


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Fowler, Norman
McCrindle, R. A.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fox, Marcus
McLaren, Martin


Astor, John
Fry, Peter
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Atkins, Humphrey
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Awdry, Daniel
Gardner, Edward
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Gibson-Watt, David
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Balniel, Lord
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maddan, Martin


Batsford, Brian
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Madel, David


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Belt, Ronald
Godber, Rt. Hn, J. B.
Marten, Neil


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Goodhart, Philip
Mather, Carol


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Goodhew, victor
Maude, Angus


Benyon, W.
Gorst, John
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gower, Raymond
Mawby, Ray


Biffen, John
Gray, Hamish
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Biggs-Davison, John
Green, Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Blaker, Peter
Grieve, Percy
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Miscampbell, Norman


Body, Richard
Grylls, Michael
Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)


Boscawen, Robert
Gummer, Selwyn
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gurden, Harold
Moate, Roger


Bowden, Andrew
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Money, Ernie


Boyd-Carpcnter, Rt. Hn. John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Braine, Bernard
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector


Bray, Ronald
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Montgomery, Fergus


Brew is, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hastings, Stephen
Mudd, David


Bryan, Paul
Havers, Michael
Murton, Oscar


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Hawkins, Paul
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Buck, Antony
Hay, John
Neave, Alrey


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hayhoe, Barney
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Burden, F. A.
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hicks, Robert
Normanton, Tom


Carlisle, Mark
Higgins, Terence L.
Nott, John


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hiley, Joseph
Onslow, Cranley


Chapman, Sydney
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Osborn, John


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Holland, Philip
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Holt, Miss Mary
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Clegg, Walter
Hordern, Peter
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Cockeram, Eric
Hornby, Richard
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Cooke, Robert
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Percival, Ian


Coombs, Derek
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cooper, A. E.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pink, R. Bonner


Cordle, John
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hunt, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cormack, Patrick
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Costain, A. P,
Iremonger, T. L.
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Critchley, Julian
James, David
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Crouch, David
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Raison, Timothy


Crowder, F. P.
Jessel, Toby
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, James Maj. -Gen.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Dean, Paul
Jopling, Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ronton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dixon, Piers
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dodos-Parker, Douglas
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kimball, Marcus
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Dykes, Hugh
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Eden, Sir John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kinsey, J. R.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kirk, Peter
Rost, Peter


Emery, Peter
Kitson, Timothy
Royle, Anthony


Eyre, Reginald
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Russell, Sir Ronald


Farr, John
Knox, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fell, Anthony
Lane, David
Scott, Nicholas


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fidler, Michael
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sharples, Richard


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstorte)
Simeons, Charles







Sinclair, Sir George
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Skeet, T. H. H.
Tebbit, Norman
Warren, Kenneth


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Temple, John M.
Weatherill, Bernard


Soref, Harold
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Spence, John
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Sproat, Iain
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Stainton, Keith
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stanbrook, Ivor
Tilney, John
Wilkinson, John


Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Trew, Peter
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Tugendhat, Christopher
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Stokes, John
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Woodnutt, Mark


Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
van Straubcnzee, W. R.
Worsley, Marcus


Sutcliffe, John
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Tapsell, Peter
Vickers, Dame Joan



Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Waddington, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Wall, Patrick
Mr. Jasper More and


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Walters, Dennis
Mr. Keith Speed.

Mr. McNamara: I beg to move Amendment (nnnnn) to the proposed Clause, in line 9, at end insert:
(c) any independent organisation of workers which would qualify to register or is registered by virtue of an enactment in force on the date before the commencement of this Act.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we shall discuss Amendment (OOOOO), in line 9, at end insert:
(c) an independent organisation of workers which is eligible for registration under the Trade Union Act 1871.
and Amendment (ppppp), in line 25, after 'union', insert:
'or independent organisation of workers'.

Mr. McNamara: We have just heard from the Solicitor-General a learned exposition on why a group of organisations which include amongst their activities the negotiation of certain wages and working conditions should be treated separately. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that they were in a special category, that they were limited companies, or that they were chartered organisations. Therefore, he said, they did not fall into the category of trade unions and were to be treated separately. We then had a speech from the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) explaining how these organisations were in some way different.
For the sake of argument, accepting the hon. and learned Gentleman's point that these organisations cannot come under the same umbrella as trade unions, I now reverse the argument and put trade unions under the same umbrella as chartered organisations and limited companies. In that way, we shall gain the equality for which the hon. and learned Gentleman looked, since all these parties will be treated on a par.
The Government's Amendments represent a piece of class legislation for these

societies and organisations. For some reason, they do not wish to be associated with the horny-handed sons of toil in the A.S.T.M.S. Somehow, these organisations fear that they will lose out if they do not have a provision of this sort, since other organisations and unions will come in and swallow up little isolated pockets of their members. For those reasons, they need these special Clauses.
Earlier today, we discussed Amendments to alter the definition of a trade union, to leave out the provision that no organisation can be registered as a trade union if it is a limited company, and to enable these organisations to act as trade unions by amending their charters. As my right hon. Friend has said, we have heard no argument to show why this should not be done, apart from a strange argument of convenience. Therefore, to meet the convenience of this small group of esoteric organisations, we are obliged to spend a day on these special Clauses, and, furthermore, we need to put them into a special category. In view of that, I say that trade unions should be eligible to go into the same category if they so desire.
I am sorry to see that the hon. Member for Barry has left the Chamber, because I wanted to deal with some of the points that he raised just now. The argument seems to have developed that the rôle and function of the trade union is purely and simply wage negotiation and regulation of conditions of work. This is far from the fact, although I do not deny that it is a principal object.
The rule book of my own union has two pages of objects of which the negotiation of wages and the regulation of conditions of work take up only three lines. The remainder of the rule book is about differences in the union, workers' control of industries in which they are


engaged, various political, insurance, cooperative, publishing, financial, education and other kinds of benefit. Therefore, trade unions should be looked at in the same light as any of these other organisations. The regulation of conditions of work and negotiation of wages are its principal objects, but they are only two of a host of other important objects which the union seeks to fulfil for its members.
For example, the public might legitimately think that the only rôle of the B.M.A. was negotiating wages and conditions for its members and that all the other functions were secondary.
This group of Clauses takes away in part the power or the need to amend the rules to the same extent for these organisations as would be needed by a trade union. I understand that under paragraph 23 of Schedule 3 the Registrar may waive many of the provisions which are required. I understand that undertakings have been given that if there are difficulties about rules and regulations they will be waived for these various professional and other organisations.
The suggestion has been made that these professional organisations have another and very different function: that they are concerned with education matters—the standards of academic skill and achievement to which their members shall aspire before recognition. Doctors and lawyers, whether they have or have not got university degrees, can qualify through various professional organisations following approved courses of one kind or another, as can accountants and others. These professional organisations, rightly, have a keen desire to protect the standards of their members. But the same rule applies very much to trade unions.
For example, the print unions have a very keen and competitive craft system. I think it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) who said that it was as easy for a man to get an apprenticeship in one of the printing unions as to get a camel through the eye of a needle. As is right and proper, the print unions have a professional pride and skill and, therefore, need to regulate the conditions of work and wages of their members on the labour

market. This applies just as much to the professional organisations.
The A.U.E.W. has a grading structure. A grade I man can do a particular type of skilled job. As one goes down the list, so the degree of skill becomes less and a man is qualified to do less important jobs. This again is right and proper. The craft unions regulate standards of skill and expertise within themselves just as the professional organisations do. The boiler-makers union is another example.
To take the reverse side of the coin, a general union, seamen would not go to sea unless their ship had a properly qualified skipper, radio operator, engineer, and so on, and they, in their turn, would insist that their skills shall be recognised and used.
We all have an interest in professional skills and standards. This is not limited to the alleged professional organisations. Unions spend a lot of time discussing not only wages and conditions but professional standards and the application of new techniques in industry. In fact, D.A.T.A. has a reputation of being one of the foremost publishing organisations in terms of engineering technology in the books which it produces for its practising members. All these functions are part and parcel of what trade unions do, just as they are part and parcel of what the professional organisations do.
7.15 p.m.
Therefore, my point is that we also, when the Consultative Document was first produced—

Mr. John Fraser: Hatched.

Mr. McNamara: —were presented with a situation where professional organisations felt that their positions were being attacked. Those organisations went running to the Secretary of State screaming their heads off about what would happen to them. They used as their primary example the A.S.T.M.S. negotiating rates for the doctors. On the basis of what they saw happening as white-collar unions developed, particularly in semi-professional spheres, they took it that something had to be done for them. So the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends chose to announce, not to this House, but along the corridor, that they were to create a new privileged group to come under this special register. That announcement was made in another place, which


was right and proper because of the hierarchical structure of things.
Having done this, the Government are now seeking to justify it on some of the most tenuous of legal arguments. We have not yet had from the Solicitor-General any concrete explanation why the Amendments which we earlier suggested could not have done away with the need for the Clause. Because we are suspicious, because we do not trust what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are doing, we say that if the Government do this, they should put the trade unions and any independent organisation of workers in the same position, and then we shall be able to judge the Government's veracity and integrity.

Mr. Adam Butler: Having listened to the debate for over three hours, I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) that we are taking too much time on this single new Clause, as we have, due to the continual repetitive speeches by hon. Members opposite, on so many other Clauses. If I am right in supposing that the timetable for Report is that desired by the Opposition Front Bench, then I should be critical of them for giving us a whole day on new Clauses 8 to 10 and, indeed, four days on Report for new Clauses 1 to 10.
The debate has, amongst other things, centred on the position of white-collar workers. I should like to think that both sides of the House are in favour of the development of white-collar or staff organisations. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who is not here now, said that he would like to see the medical profession affiliated to the T.U.C.
The real attitude of the Opposition is apparent in their approach to U.K.A.P.E. According to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), U.K.A.P.E. has been successful and has increased membership rapidly over the last two years. This is highly commendable; but he is against this association, because he says that it is backed by the bosses. So far as I know, he has produced no evidence for this, but he has been hurling this accusation across the Chamber in Committee and on Report without sufficient support.
But the attitude of mind to which I am referring is the criticism of the members of U.K.A.P.E. because, in more or less the hon. Member's words, they had the interest of the people at heart during one of the recent disputes, when they were prepared to keep their vital industry going in the interests of the State. Here we come back to a discussion which we had in Committee about the meaning of the word "responsible". Those members of U.K.A.P.E., I think, showed a sense of responsibility not only to their own members but to other people, whereas, according to hon. Members opposite, responsibility in the trade union sense is entirely inward-looking and selfish. This is why U.K.A.P.E. has come under criticism.
But the ground has been taken from under the feet of hon. Members opposite. They thought that these Clauses, setting up the special register, were designed to support unions like U.K.A.P.E. But, as the Solicitor-General said, they are not, so far as he knows, eligible because they are not limited companies.
The ground has been taken from under the Opposition's feet also as regards their attitude throughout the debate towards members of the legal profession. Although there are many sitting on the Labour Party side of the Chamber, we have heard continual sneers. But they have discovered today, to their horror, that the Bar Council is not a closed shop, and that 10 per cent. or more—

Mr. Rose: The hon. Member is right, of course, in saying that the Bar Council is not a closed shop, but is this not a matter of semantics, since the requirement to take dinners, the requirement to keep terms for a period of three years, quite irrespective of practice at the Bar or obtaining certain standards of qualification, is nevertheless a necessity before one enters the profession and, therefore, becomes eligible to be a member of the Bar Council?

Mr. Butler: I will let the hon. Member debate that one with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, but I think he will agree that 10 per cent. of those practising at the Bar are not members of the Bar Council. So in that sense a closed shop is not operating in the legal profession. We have heard throughout the debate, evidence of this tendency to


sneer at the white-collar worker—[Horn. MEMBERS: "No."]——which we on this side do not feel—

Mr. Dan Jones: The hon. Member should withdraw that observation.

Mr. Butler: In certain cases, there has been a continual reflection on members of certain professions in the higher echelons of the white-collar workers.
Amendments Nos. (ooooo) and (nnnnn) suggest that the Opposition accept the principle of a special register. They cannot have it both ways. They seem to think that it would be right for trade unions to go on a special register because it gives special privileges. We have debated for three hours or more, trying to show that the privileges which new Clause 8 gives to those who join the special register are no more and no less than those which would be enjoyed by those unions which will join the normal register. They have to meet certain qualifications of independence, they have to be organisations of workers, and they must be involved in the regulation of relations between workers and employers. They will be subject to the same criteria as laid down in Clause 61. and, to answer the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), they will be subject to the same scrutiny of their rules as trade unions which are registered.
For that reason, these two or three Amendments are irrelevant and are put in merely for the object of spending an unncessary amount of time discussing new Clause 8. Therefore, I reject them.

Mr. John Fraser: The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) says that this debate has been a waste of time. The Government will concede that if one of these Amendments were accepted the T.U.C. could go on the special register by virtue of being an independent organisation of workers. Will the Solicitor-General now answer my point, that Clause 63(3) prevents the T.U.C. from being a trade union as defined by Clause 57(3) if one of its affiliated organisations is on the special register? In other words, it could be a trade union under the Bill if a chartered organisation which goes on the special register wanted to affiliate to it. Is that true or not?

The Solicitor-General: May I deal with that point quickly? Clause 63(3) may have that effect. That is why I was rather guarded in my reply, because of the relationship between new Clause 8(4) and Clause 63(3), which may raise matters which we should look at again in the light of the point made by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser). There is no intention of multiplying unnecessary complications.
But the basic provision that a federation should be comprised of registered bodies is the idea which we are pursuing. I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising this point.

Mr. Dudley Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) has made some trenchant and useful comments, but I do not go all the way with him in what he said about time being wasted today. One can argue a great deal about the Opposition's use of their time under the Guillotine, and I would criticise them for wasting time on certain provisions, but these debates today have been valuable, because they have shown the House and the country that there is nothing for the Government to hide in regard to this special register, that it is needed and that there have been representations over it. The arguments advanced by the Opposition so far lead one to believe that they view this, erroneously, as a piece of class legislation, when it is nothing of the sort.
I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that there is a good deal in common between the specially registered body and the ordinary trade union, and industrial relations are only one of many objectives. But the provisions of the Bill, once the specially registered bodies are registered, will ensure that they find conditions just as arduous as the ordinary trade unions unless they toe the line.
Like my hon. and learned Friend, I was disturbed when the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North referred again to class legislation and implied that this was a spiteful piece of anti-unionism. When the truth is known, after the Bill has been working for some time, I believe that trade unionism will be increased. There is nothing wrong with this. It will probably be a good thing, provided that it is responsible trade unionism. I hope


that the Bill will give every opportunity for it to be responsible.
7.30 p.m.
I sometimes think that just as some people I know see "reds under the bed" at every opportunity, so the Opposition see class legislation and class prejudice in everything which the Government and this party try to do. A narrow view like that makes no contribution to our proceedings. The allegation might be made far more effectively on other occasions. Here, there is no class prejudice whatever. We are trying to meet a difficult situation by establishing machinery without which a number of organisations would be in extreme difficulty—

Mr. Dan Jones: The Under-Secretary of State refers to "reds under the bed"; would he not agree that if the Bill ever becomes law it is lawyers who will be wanted under the bed?

Mr. Smith: No, I do not. I believe that once the Measure is working it will be well observed, by and large, and there will not be a rash of litigation. There may be some at first, but I do not think that the two sides of industry will be sitting there with their lawyers poised for action. I take a more optimistic view than does the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. James Tinn: We all know that the House, Ministers and others have had difficulty in understanding the Bill. How is the hon. Gentleman so confident that laymen in industry will be able to understand its provisions, even if they want to observe them?

Mr. Smith: I think that they will be able to understand them because in any case the Bill's main provisions are pretty well known, and we shall publish a code of practice which will be of assistance to both sides of industry.
The effect of the Amendments would be to extend the special register to include the majority of trade unions as now defined in the Trade Union Acts. It is very important to emphasise that it will be open to any independent organisation of workers which would be eligible for registration under the 1871 Act to seek registration as trade unions under the Bill.
There has been some misunderstanding on both sides because of the reference to the ordinary register as against the

special register as though there were special provisions for the chartered bodies which will come under the register. It is difficult to refer to first and second registers because, again, that might give the impression of two different categories. Responsibilities under both registers will be very important. The special register is so called because it is different from the other.
It is worth saying once again that the special register is intended to cater for certain organisations of workers who would not be eligible to register as trade unions outside it. This is the only aim behind the provision. There is nothing sinister about it. These organisations are already subject to statutory administrative requirements which overlap certain of the Bill's administrative provisions, and they are not required to satisfy those provisions in the context of registration upon the special register.
If hon. Members would only stop to think, they would realise that if the door were open to all orthodox trade unions those unions would escape some of the provisions of the Bill. It is important that both sides of industry should have the opportunity of fulfilling their obligations. The chartered organisations which are seeking this provision are in the difficulty that if they tried to get on the ordinary register they would probably find themselves having to tear up their charters and their company status, and one of their primary aims very often is not regulation of industrial relations as such.
If, in particular, Amendment (nnnnn) were accepted, it would make the first register entirely redundant and we would then have a situation in which all the parties concerned in the Bill would be able to get admission to the second register—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I do not believe that this is justifiable. In any case, it is very odd for the Opposition to keep on complaining about our making it easier for organisations to operate under the provisions of the Bill when all the time they are criticising its provisions.
In these circumstances I think that the provision for special registration is right. The special chartered bodies should have the opportunity of fulfilling their obligations under the Bill, but only they should be eligible for the special register. They will gain nothing over the orthodox trade


unions, which will themselves gain admission via the ordinary register, if they decide to register, as I hope they will, and I can foresee that there will not be many bodies which will finally achieve registration in the special register. In these circumstances, it is right to have the two registers but, if the Amendments were accepted, we would be doing away with the first register.

Mr. Harold Walker: The Under-Secretary has made it quite clear that he has not followed what we have been arguing all the afternoon. We are opposed to the special register. There is no doubt about our opposition to it. We are opposed to the other register, too. We are opposed to both registers with equal force, vigour and vehemence. We argue that the register and the special register, and the provision for organisations of workers who shall be eligible for neither register, relate to differences provided by the Bill itself. They divide workers into three groups of organisation. We are categorically opposed to anything that divides the working class—defining the working class as working down from, let us say, the managing director of I.C.I. to the chap who pushes a broom around in the street outside.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that these bodies should tear up their charters?

Mr. Walker: I say that the need for the special register has arisen only from the Government's introduction of the Bill which provides for all the registration requirements. It is only that which creates the need for the special register. We are opposed to the whole lot. If the Government had not brought in their silly, nonsensical onerous provisions there would not be any need for the registers. The Under-Secretary and the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) have accused us of wasting the House's time, but if anyone should be accused of wasting time it is those who have brought these proposals before the House.
I voice a strong protest that in spite of our having debated the Consultative Document and the Second Reading, the first we learned about the special register was not from any statement made by the Solicitor-General or by the Secretary of State or by the Under-Secretary of State,

but from the Press in January. The Under-Secretary shakes his head, but I can produce photo copies showing that these provisions were disclosed in the national Press as long ago as January.
We pressed in Committee for elucidation of the point, but the Solicitor-General was mute on the subject. I have searched through the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debates on that occasion for the hon. and learned Gentleman's reply, but in vain. I recall that the same evening, I confess from a sedentary position, I heard voices around me challenging the Government over this special register, but we heard nothing until these provisions appeared on the Notice Paper last week.
We have grown accustomed to the characteristics of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Important statements are funnelled to everybody except hon. Members. What a way to demean Parliament. Have the Government deliberately set out to bring Parliament into disrepute and contempt by considering everybody except hon. Members?
I also complain at the way in which the Government have conducted the negotiations over this matter. They told the T.U.C. that unless they got their observations on the Consultative Document in within a matter of weeks—by 13th November, 1970—the Government were afraid that there might not be time to consider the Congress's views. That did not prevent the Government from having long detailed consultations with the professional bodies to whom these provisions will apply.
It does not matter how much the Government protest, there is tremendous validity in our charge that bias is constantly creeping in over their attitude towards the ordinary workers who are represented by what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) called the "legitimate trade unions" compared with those who are catered for by the professional bodies we are now considering.
The Minister was right to point out that the Amendment would render the main register, or, by implication, the special register, redundant, because they would both be put on a par. That is what we want to do. We want in this sense to restore the position to what it was before this wretched Bill was introduced.
Time and again we have referred to the divisiveness of the Bill. The Secretary of State gave the game away when he challenged my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) and declared that the nurses should have a right to express their wishes. Of course they should, and I have not heard any of my hon. Friends challenge that view. Indeed, we have been asserting all along that the workers should be heard, but we are talking about all workers, including the engineers, dockers, railwaymen and miners. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would adopt the same approach to these people.

Mr. R. Carr: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense.

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friends have suggested that, by this special register procedure, the Government are providing scope for some professional bodies which have hitherto paid little or no role in determining the terms and conditions of employment to emerge as serious rivals to trade unions. I go further than that. It seems that the Government are providing scope for them to emerge not just as rivals but as bodies which could replace the trade unions.
This point was made clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) when he said that presumably the bodies which would be registered on the special register will have the same rights as a registered trade union to seek and establish bargaining rights and enter into agency agreements.
In other words, because these bodies are not primarily concerned with determining terms and conditions of employment, but have a number of other functions—I agree, of course, that legitimate trade unions have other functions, too—they may seek the rights and powers which the legitimate unions now have and, to that extent, may not only exclude certain legitimate trade unions but may weaken the collective bargaining in the area in which they operate.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. R. Carr: I am sure the hon. Gentleman wishes to be fair. What he says could only happen, from the registration point of view, if that proves to be the wish of the majority of workers involved. Does he object to the wishes of the majority being served?

Mr. Walker: Under the Bill the workers concerned could challenge a bargaining agency agreement entered into between an employer and an organisation and, when that challenge is made, it would then go through the various stages, including the ballot, when it could be overturned. However, we know all about the inequitable provisions relating to ballotting.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) showed that many of the special organisations with which we are concerned in this part of the Bill have purposes and functions which are little different from those of legitimate trade unions. The right hon. Gentleman made a point of the example of the Royal College of Nursing in trying to prove the need for this legislation.
But it has been functioning exactly as a trade union. It is on the Whitley Council, which determines terms and conditions of employment for nurses within the National Health Service. It shares a place on that council with the Confederation of National Health Service Employees. It did not need a special registration to organise that massive campaign two years ago against the then Labour Government, though it is interesting to note that its militancy has become rather subdued since the change of Government.
Reference has been made to the British Medical Association and it has been suggested that, without these special registration provisions, it could not function as a trade union. It has been suggested that it is not a body primarily concerned with functioning in this way. Are not hon. Gentlemen opposite aware that an offshoot of the B.M.A. is the British Medical Guild, which is run from the same office and by the same people as the B.M.A.? It was the British Medical Guild which, when the Labour Party were in office, persuaded 17,000 of the 22,000 doctors in the National Health Service to serve strike notices on the Service. It did not need a special register to enable the Royal College of Nurses and the B.M.A. to function most effectively as trade unions.
There are two alternatives from the point of view of bodies which may seek entry on to the special register. Either


they have the same characteristics and functions as a trade union, and should therefore be required to register, if registration is to be a necessity; or they do not have those characteristics, and should not, therefore, be given the opportunity which the register will provide to supplant the legitimate trade unions.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman says that the problem with which we are now dealing arises only from my right hon. Friend's Bill. Would he not acknowledge—I am not making a tendentious point—that under the Bill which he himself helped to prepare, which enabled the C.I.R. to make recognition orders under Clauses 7 and 8 of that Bill, that power extended only to trade unions as there defined? If he intended that power to be available in favour of bodies like the Royal College of Nursing, he would himself have found, as discussion on his Bill proceeded, that it was necessary to make special provision for bodies like the Royal College of Nursing in a similar way.

Mr. Walker: Every time the Government are stuck, every time they run out

of argument, they use as their bolt-hole the Bill which was never debated by the House. It has become a sure sign that we are winning the argument. If we had not produced "In Place of Strife", and if we had not produced that Bill, it would have been necessary for the Government to invent it. It is their stock bolt-hole. I shall not enter into an argument now, and I should be ruled out of order if I did, about the contents of a Bill which is not before the House, which was never debated in the House, and which was presented about 12 months ago.

The arguments adduced by the Under-Secretary of State have not convinced us, and I very much doubt that they convinced his own side. There have been no adequate replies to the points which have been put, and I have no hesitation in saying that we shall divide the House on the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made to the proposed Clause:—

The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 285.

Division No. 264.]
AYES
[7.51 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Crawshaw, Richard
Gilbert, Dr. John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cronin, John
Ginsburg, David


Allen, Scholefield
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Dalyell, Tarn
Gourlay, Harry


Armstrong, Ernest
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Ashley, Jack
Davidson, Arthur
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Atkinson, Norman
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Barnes Michael
Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Barnett, Joel
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hamling, William


Beaney, Alan
Deakins, Eric
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Delargy, H. J.
Hardy, Peter


Bidwell, Sydney
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bishop, E, S.
Dempsey, James
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Blenkinsop Arthur
Doig, Peter
Hattersley, Roy


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dorman, J. D.
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Booth, Albert
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Heffer, Eric S.


Bottomley Rt. Hn. Arthur
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bradley, Tom
Driberg, Tom
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


 Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Rt. Hn Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Buchan, Norman
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hunter, Adam


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Ellis, Tom
Irvine,Rt.Hn.Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Cant, R. B.
English, Michael
Janner, Greville


Carmichael, Neil
Evans, Fred
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Fernyhough, E.
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
John, Brymor


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Cohen, Stanley
Foley, Maurice
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Coleman, Donald
Foot, Michael
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Concannon, J. D.
Forrester, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Conlan, Bernard
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Jones, Cwynoro (Carmarthen)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Freeson, Reginald
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)



Garrett, W. E.
Kaufman, Gerald




Keltey, Richard
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawc)
Small, William


Kerr, Russell
Morris, Charles It. (Openshaw)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Kinnock, Neil
Morris, lit. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Spearing, Nigel


Lamhie, David
Moyle, Roland
Spriggs, Leslie


Lamend, dames
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Stallard, A. W.


Latham, Arthur
Murray, R. K.
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Lawson, George
Ogden, Eric
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Lcadbitter, Ted
O'HaMoran, Michael
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
O'Malley, Brian
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Leonard, Dick
Oram, Bert
Strang, Gavin


Lester, Miss Joan
Orbach, Maurice
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Lever, Jit. Hn. Harold
Orme, Stanley
Summerakill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Oswald, Thomas
Swain, Thomas


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Palmer, Arthur
Taverne, Dick


Lipton, Marcus
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff, W.)


Lomas, Kenneth
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertiilery)


Loughlin, Charles
Pavitt, Laurie
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Tinn, James


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Pendry, Tom
Tomney, Frank


Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pentland, Norman
Tomey, Tom


McBride, Neil
Perry, Ernest G.
Tuck, Raphael


McCartney, Hugh
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Urwin, T. W.


McElhone, Frank
Prescott, John
Wainwright, Edwin


McGuire, Michael
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mackenzie, Gregor
Probert, Arthur
Wallace, George


Mackie, John
Rankin, John
Watkins, David


Mackintosh, John P.
Reed, D. (Seilgefteld)
Weitzman, David


Maclennan, Robert
Rees, Mcrlyn (Leeds, S.)
Wetlbeloved, James


MeNamara, J. Kevin
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


MacPherson, Malcolm
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. G oronwy (Caernarvon)
Whitehead, Phillip


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Whitlock, William


Marks, Kenneth
Roderick, Caerwyn E.tBr'c'n&amp;R'nor)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Marquand, David
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Roper, John
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Meacher, Michael
Rose, Paul B.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Mendelson, John
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Millan, Bruce
Short, Mrs. Renee (W'hampton,N.E.)



Miller, Dr. M. S.
Sillars, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Silverman, Julius
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Molioy, William
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. John Golding.


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)






NOES


Adley, Robert
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.OMoray&amp;Nairn)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Carlisle, Mark
Fleteher-Cooke, Charles


Allason, James (Heme! Hempstead)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Chapman, Sydney
Fortescue, Tim


Archer Jeffrey (Louth)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fowler, Norman


Astor, John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fox, Marcus


Atkins, Humphrey
Clegg, Walter
Fry, Peter


Awdry, Daniel
Cock'Eram, Eric
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Balniel, Lord
Cooke, Robert
Gardner, Edward


Batsford, Brian
Coombs, Derek
Gibson-Watt, David


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cooper, A. E.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Bell, Ronald
Cordle, John
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Cortield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
cormack, Patrick
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Benyon, W.
Coslain, A. P.
Coodhart, Philip


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Critchley, Julian
Coodhew, Victor


Biffen, John
Crouch, David
Gorst, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Crowder, F. P.
Cower, Raymond


maker, Peter
Curran, Charles
Cray, Hamish


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Green, Alan


Body, Richard
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Grieve, Percy


Boscawen, Robert
Dean, Paul
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Grylls, Michael


Bowden, Andrew
Digby, Simon Wingfieid
Gummer, Selwyn


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Dixon, Piers
Gurden, Harold


Braine, Bernard
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bray, Ronald
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hall-Davis, A. C. F.


Brewis, John
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Dykes, Hugh
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Eden, Sir John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Bruce-Gardyne, J
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bryan, Paul
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tync,N.)
Hastings, Stephen


Buck, Antony
Emery, Peter
Havers, Michael


Bullus, Sir Eric
Eyre, Reginald
Hawkins, Paul


Burden, F. A.
Farr, John
Hay, John


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fell, Anthony
Hayhoe, Barney



Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hicks, Robert







Higgins, Terence L.
Miscampbell, Norman
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hiley, Joseph
Mitchell,Lt-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Simeons, Charles


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Moate, Roger
Sinclair, Sir George


Holland, Philip
Molyneaux, James
Skeet, T. H. H.


Holt, Miss Mary
Money, Ernie
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Hooson, Emlyn
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Soref, Harold


Hornby, Richard
Monro, Hector
Spence, John


Homsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Montgomery, Fargus
Sproat, Iain


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Stainton, Keith


Howell, David (Guildford)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Steel, David


Hunt, John
Mudd, David
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Murton, Oscar
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


James, David
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Neave, Airey
Stokes, John


Je6sel, Toby
Nichols, Sir Harmar
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Sutcliffe, John


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Normanton, Tom
Tapsell, Peter


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Nott, John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Jopling, Michael
Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Kershaw, Anthony
Osbom, John
Tebbit, Norman


Kimball, Marcus
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Temple, John M.


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Kinsey, J. R.
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Kirk, Pet:r
Percival, Ian
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Kitson, Timothy
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Tilney, John


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Pink, R. Bonner
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Knox, David
Pounder, Rafton
Trew, Peter


Lambton. Antony
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Tugendhat, Christopher


Lane, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Proudfoot, Wilfred
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Le Marchant, Spencer
Quinnell, Miss J. M.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Raison, Timothy
Waddington, David


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wail, Patrick


Longden, Gilbert
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Walters, Dennis


Loveridge, John
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Ward, Dame Irene


MacArthur, Ian
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Warren, Kenneth


McCrindle, R. A.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Weatherill, Bernard


McLaren, Martin
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


McNair-Wilson. Michael
Ridsdale, Julian
Wiggin, Jerry


McNair-Wilson, Patrick(New Forest)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Wilkinson, John


Madel, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Maginnis, John E.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Rodgere, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Marten, Neil
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Woodnutt, Mark


Mather, Carol
Rost, Peter
Worsley, Marcus


Maude, Angus
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Younger, Hn. George


Mawby, Ray
Scott, Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Scott-Hopkins, James
Mr. Jasper More and


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sharpies, Richard
Mr. Keith Speed.


Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Qusetion put, That the Clause be added to the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 235.

Division No. 265.]
AYES
[8.2 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Biggs-Davison, John
Bullus, Sir Eric


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Blaker, Peter
Burden, F. A.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Boardman, Tom (Leicestsr, S.W.)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Body, Richard
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Boscawen, Robert
Carlisle, Mark


Astor, John
Bossom, Sir Clive
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert


Atkins, Humphrey
Bowden, Andrew
Chapman, Sydney


Awdry, Daniel
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Balniel, Lord
Brains, Bernard
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)


Batsford, Brian
Bray, Ronald
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brewis, John
Cockeram, Eric


Bell, Ronald
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Cooke, Robert


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bat)
Coombs, Derek


Bennett Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Cooper, A. E.


Benyon, W.
Bryan Paul
Cordle, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;amp;M)
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Biffen, John
Buck, Antony
Cormack, Patrick




Costain, A. P.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Critchley, Julian
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Crouch, David
Jopling, Michael
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Crowder, F. P.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Curran, Charles
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Reee-Davies, W. R.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


d-Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
 Kershaw, Anthony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dean, Paul
Kimball, Marcus
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ridsdale, Julian


Digby, Simon Wingfield
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Dixon, Piers
Kinsey, J. R.
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kirk, Peter
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Douglas-Home, Rt Hn. Sir Alec
Kitson, Timothy
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


du Cann, Rt Hn. Edward
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, David
Rost, Peter


Eden, Sir John
Lambton, Antony
Russell, Sir Ronald


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lane, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Scott, Nicholas


Elliott, R. W. (Newcastle-u-Tyne,N.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Scott-Hopkins, James


Emery, Peter
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sharpies, Richard


Eyre, Reginald
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Farr, John
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fell, Anthony
Longden, Gilbert
Simeons, Charles


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Loveridge, John
Sinclair, Sir George


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
MacArthur, Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McCrindle, R. A,
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Fookes, Miss Janet
McLaren, Martin
Soref, Harold


Fortescue, Tim
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Speed, Keith


Fowler, Norman
McMaster, Stanley
Spence, John


Fox, Marcus
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Sproat, Iain


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stainton, Keith


Calbraith, Hn. T. G.
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gardner, Edward
Madel, David
Steel, David


Gibson-Watt, David
Maginnis, John E.
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Marten, Neil
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Mather, Carol
Stokes, John


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maude, Angus
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Goodhart, Philip
Maudlins, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Sutcliffe, John


Goodhew, Victor
Mawby, Ray
Tapsell, Peter


Gorst, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cower, Raymond
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor.Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Gray, Hamish
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Green, Alan
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Grieve, Percy
Mitchell,Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Tebbit, Norman


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Temple, John M.


Grylls, Michael
Moate, Roger
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Cummer, Selwyn
Molyneaux, James
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Curden, Harold
Money, Ernie
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.) Tilney, John


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Monro, Hector
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Montgomery, Fergus
Trew, Peter


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Mudd, David
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Hastings, Stephen
Murton, Oscar
Vickers, Dame Joan


Havers, Michael
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Waddington, David


Hawkins, Paul
Neave, Airey
Wall, Patrick


Hay, John
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Walters, Dennis


Hayhoe, Barney
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Ward, Dame Irene


Hicks, Robert
Normanton, Tom
Warren, Kenneth


Higgins, Terence L.
Nott, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Hiley, Joseph
Onslow, Cranley
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
White, Roger (Cravesend)


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Holland, Philip
Osborn, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Holt, Miss Mary
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Wilkinson, John


Hooson, Entlyn
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hornby, Richard
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Hornsby-Smith,Fit.Hn.Dame Patricia
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Woodhouse. Hn. Christopher


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Percival, Ian
Woodnutt, Mark


Howell, David (Guildford)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John



Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Worsley, Marcus


Hunt, John
Pink, R. Bonner
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Younger, Hn. George


Iremonger, T. L.
Price, David (Eastleigh)



James, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Mr. Jasper More and


Jessel, Toby
Ouennell, Miss J. M.
Mr. Walter Clegg.


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Raison, Timothy








NOES


Abse, Leo
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Murray, Ronald King


Alien, Scholefield
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Ogden, Eric


Archer, Peter (Rowley Aegis)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
O'Halloran, Michael


Armstrong, Ernest
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
O'Malley, Brian


Ashton, Joe
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Oram, Bert


Atkinson, Norman
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Orbach, Maurice


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hardy, Peter
Orme, Stanley


Barnes, Michael
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oswald, Thomas


Barnett, Joel
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Palmer, Arthur


Beaney, Alan
Hattersley, Roy
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgton)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Bidwell, Sydney
Heffer, Eric S.
Pavitt, Laurie


Bishop, E. S.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pendry, Tom


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pentland, Norman


Booth, Albert
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Perry, Ernest G.


Bottomley, lit. Hn. Arthur
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Bradley, Tom
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Prescott, John


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hunter, Adam
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
lrvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Probert, Arthur


Buchan, Norman
Janner, Greville
Rankin, John


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Cant, R. B.
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Carmichael, Neil
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Roderick,Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roper, John


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jones, Cwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rose, Paul B.


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)



Kaufman, Gerald
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Coleman, Donald
Kelley, Richard
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)


Concannon, J. D,
Kerr, Russell
Sillars, James


Conlan, Bernard
Kinnock, Neil
Silverman, Julius


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lambie, David
Skinner, Dennis


Crawshaw Richard
Lamond, James
Small, William


Cronin, John
Latham, Arthur
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Lawson, George
Spearing, Nigel


Dalyell, Tarn
Leadbitter, Ted
Spriggs, Leslie


Darling, fit. Hn. George
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Stallard, A. W.


Davidson, Arthur
Leonard, Dick



Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Strang, Gavin


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Linton, Marcus
Strauss, Rt. Hn. C. R.


Deakins, Eric
Lomas, Kenneth
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Delargy, H. J.
Loughlin, Charles
Swain, Thomas


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Taverne, Dick


Dempsey, James
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Thomas.Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff.W.)


Doig, Peter
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Dormand, J. D.
McBride, Neil
Thomson, Rt. Hn, G. (Dundee, E.)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
McCartney, Hugh
Tinn, James


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McElhone, Frank
Tomney, Frank


Driberg, Tom
McGuire, Michael
Torney, Tom


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mackenzie, Gregor
Tuck, Raphael


Dunnett, Jack
Mackie, John
Urwin, T. W.


Eadie, Alex
Mackintosh, John P.
Wainwright, Edwin


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Maclennan, Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wallace, George


Ellis, Tom
MacPherson, Malcolm
Watkins, David


English, Michael
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Weitzman, David


Evans, Fred
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.)
Wellbeloved, James


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Marks, Kenneth
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fisher, Mrs, Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Marquand, David
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Whitehead, Phillip


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Meacher, Michael
Whitlock, William


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Foley, Maurice
Mendelson, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Foot, Michael
Millan, Bruce
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Forrester, John
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Freeson, Reginald
Molloy, William
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Garrett, W. E.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)



Gilbert, Dr. John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ginsburg, David
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Gordon Walker, Rt Hn. P. C.
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Mr. John.


Gourlay, Harry
Moyle, Roland

Clause accordingly added to the Bill.

New Clause 9

APPLICATION FOR ENTRY IN SPECIAL REGISTER

(1) An application for entry in the special register may be made by any organisation to the registrar in such form and manner as the registrar may require.


5
(2) Together with any such application there shall be sent to the registrar a copy of the rules of the organisation, a list of its officers, and the names and addresses of its 5 branches (if any)


(3) If on any such application the registrar is satisfied—


10
(a) that the organisation is eligible for entry in the special register by virtue of section (Organisation eligible for entry in special register) (3) of this Act, and


(b) that the requirements of subsection (2) of this section have been complied with, the registrar, on payment of a fee of £25 or such other amount as may be prescribed, shall enter the organisation in the special register as an organisation of workers other than a federation of workers' organisations, and shall issue to it a certificate of such registration.


15
(4) In determining, for the purposes of subsection (3) of this section, whether an organisation fulfils the condition specified in section (Organisations eligible for entry in special register) (3)(b) of this Act, the registrar shall have regard to the activities actually carried on by the organisation, whether they appear to him to be in accordance with its memorandum and articles of association, or (as the case may be) its charter or letters patent, or not.


20
(5) If on an application under this section the registrar is satisfied—



(a) that the organisation is eligible for entry in this special register by virtue of section (Organisations eligible for entry in special register) (4) of this Act, and



(b) that the requirements of subsection (2) of this section have been complied with,


25
the registrar, on payment of a fee of £25 or such other amount as may be prescribed, shall enter the organisation in the special register as a federation of workers' organisations, and shall issue to it a certificate of such registration.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): With the new Clause it will be convenient to take for debate the Opposion Amendment No. 240, in Schedule 3, page 124, leave out paragraph 23.

Mr. Smith: The Clause is a necessary adjunct of new Clause 8. I understand and accept that the Opposition are opposed to the whole of these proposals, but I am sure that they will agree that if new Clause 8 stands there must be the right interpretation, and that comes in the proposed Clause.
The Clause specifies the procedure for registering an organisation in the special register. Subsection (1) authorises the registrar to determine the form and manner of the application. Subsection (2) lists the information which must accompany it. Subsection (3) requires the registrar to register an organisation which complies with those requirements and which is otherwise eligible, and also prescribes the fee to be paid. Subsection (4) requires the registrar to have regard to the activities of an organisation in

determining its eligibility for inclusion in the special register. Subsection (5) makes provisions for the registration of a federation on the special register which are broadly similar to those in subsection (3).
The procedure for making application for entry in the special register is very much the same as that set out in Clause 64, which makes provisions for the registration of a trade union. But there are two differences. First, subsection (2) of the proposed Clause does not require the organisation to submit a financial statement with its application. This is because the requirement is related to the requirement in Clause 81 to submit annual returns to the Registrar, from which organisations on the special register are also excluded. They are subject to similar requirements under the Companies Act or under their charter, so the interests of their members are protected in that way.
8.15 p.m.
The second difference from the provisions for ordinary trade union registration is contained in subsection (4) of new Clause 9, which provides that, in


determining the organisation's eligibility for registration,
… the registrar shall have regard to the activities …
and not those stated in its constitution. As we have explained, the special register is intended to accommodate organisations which do not have the regulation of relations with employers as a principal objective although they are involved in negotiations as an important subsidiary activity. In these circumstances the constitution of the organisation is unlikely to yield a clear reference to the activity. I emphasise again that these new provisions have emerged from consultations which have taken place with a number of organisations. We were accused earlier by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) of having brought these provisions forward with a good deal of secrecy, but they were well known. We were not responsible for the Press reports.
These were democratic representations. It was well known that there were anxieties among many hon. Members, certainly among many of my hon. Friends, about some of these organisations, and there were detailed consultations. These organisations would like to register in order to safeguard their present negotiating position, and we believe that it is right that the machinery should be provided for them. New Clause 9 provides further machinery following new Clause 8.

Mr. Rose: It the hon. Gentleman saying that even though these activities do not legitimately form part of their charters and are not within the scope of their charters, they are to be allowed to carry on these activities without amending the charters?

Mr. Dudley Smith: It is open to them to take advice as to where they stand before making application. I understand that we can debate this in detail later on an Opposition Amendment.
We believe it right that these provisions should be made for organisations which otherwise would not be able to qualify under the ordinary register, and that, therefore, they will help towards better industrial relations for all those who have at heart the interests of their own workers, whether they be white-collar or blue-collar workers.

Mr. Sillars: I oppose new Clause 9. No doubt some hon. Members opposite will regard what I am going to say as boring repetition of what has been said already by the Opposition. Nevertheless I again accuse the Government of having a class bias which is shown in new Clauses 8, 9 and 10. I put their claim that there is no such class bias in the same category as the claim of the Secretary of State that the Bill is fair and reasonable and the claim of the Prime Minister in June that he would reduce prices at a stroke—which was one of the biggest political whoppers in our history.
If the right hon. Gentleman wonders why people in the trade union movement are so annoyed by the Bill he need look no further than our attitude towards new Clauses 8, 9 and 10. All three Clauses exhibit the class bias of the Tory Party very clearly.
I am bound to say to some trade unionists outside this Chamber who may have abstained or even voted Conservative at the election that it should come as no surprise to them to discover that the Government have class bias towards trade unionists, because it was exhibited on every sticker on every Tory agent's car during the campaign. The stickers showed only one-quarter of the Union Jack, and not the whole of the Union Jack as they used to.

Mr. David Mitchell: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument but I do not understand what he means by referring to one-half of the Union Jack.

Mr. Sillars: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would have been aware of the fact that the Tory Party's election stickers showed only one-quarter of the Union Jack—not one half—whereas they used to use the whole of the Union Jack a few years ago.

Mr. Murray: Would my hon. Friend accept that the Tory badge was the Union Jack hung, drawn and quartered?

Mr. Sillars: It was certainly a clear sign of the Tory Party's strategy to rule by dividing the people. The Government intend to divide unfairly between professional and what they term "working-class" people. As the ownership of capital has become divorced from management over the years, some of the


old informal barriers have been broken down by good and militant trade unionists such as Clive Jenkins and his organisation, the A.S.T.M.S., and D.A.T.A. The Government now find it necessary to try to divide the movement —I use that word in broad terms—in a more formal manner. These three new Clauses are part of that strategy. They are deliberately attempting to divide professional people and certain very important categories from other sections of the people who sell their labour to live.
The practical effect of the Bill is that if people want to operate in an industrial situation, in so far as they are concerned with the regulation of conditions between workers and employers they must operate under a licence. Some are obviously to have a special licence. A kind of industrial apartheid is being created by the Bill through these three new Clauses.
It may well be that, on examination of the Bill, we shall find that the Government intend to give only a slight advantage to organisations going on the special register. But in my view there is a distinct organisational advantage, certainly in the short term and probably in the long term as well. We must bear in mind the character of the special organisations which the Government are setting up and the character of the special register and understand where they stand in relation to the share-out of wealth and the social status accorded to them by what I term, in my naive Left-wing Socialist way, as the "Establishment".
Organisations such as the British Medical Association are likely to be the ones least bothersome, certainly to a Conservative Government and to anybody orientated in the Conservative manner. They are the easiest people to deal with because of their affinity to the Establishment. One need cite no further evidence than the treatment given to the doctors as opposed to the dockers within the same industrial and financial context last year and the treatment given to the judges compared with that accorded by Conservative Ministers, certainly in their verbal onslaught, to the dustmen.
It may be that the problem involved in the setting-up of the special register lies in the fact that we are likely to get another industrial relations Bill from the Government—a Mark II version. It is

already being spoken about by certain supporters of the Tory Party outside this House. That is one of the things which worry me about the future. I do not believe that this Bill will resolve industrial disputes, an as the problem is not solved, then the logic of the Conservative Party will be to tighten the screw even further by introducing a second industrial relations Bill coming down even harder than this one on what we regard as the bona fide organised trade union movement. Perhaps some hon. Members will say then, "There have been two sorts of registered union. The special ones have behaved themselves, so they may remain untouched and, indeed, we might loosen then the bonds somewhat. But we must tighten the screw on the others." They may help the B.M.A. at the expense of the A.S.T.M.S., for example.
The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) is enjoying himself laughing at the moment. We shall have to see which of us is right. I think that I probably am on the right lines in forecasting what will happen. I am sure that I shall be proved more correct than he is. The mere fact that there are to be two types of trade union under the Bill will allow the Government to reward their friends for good behaviour. It is fanciful to suggest that the present Government are incapable of underhand or unfair industrial or social practices. A Government which would steal milk from primary school children are capable of many things. It is a fair point to make that if they are capable of that they are capable of many things. They are capable of working on and expanding their class bias, which is contained now in the special register.
The Government's basic attitude towards respectable, professional middle-class organisations compared with non-respectable working-class organisations can be found in the different approaches they take towards them in the Bill, particularly in new Clauses 9 and 11. I do not want to discuss tomorrow's business, when new Clause 11 comes up, but one must refer to it in passing. The Government should not be surprised that we doubt the sincerity of their view that they are setting up the special register for no underhand reason.
Why, for example, are we not to have a provisional special register so that


organisations going on the special register would be subject to the same deep scrutiny which other organisations will be which are going on the ordinary register? The use of the word "special" is also most unfortunate. The Solicitor-General is not here at the moment but one need not explain to a lawyer how important words are, certainly in this Bill. Earlier, the hon. and learned Gentleman explained that the bias in Clause 64(4)(b) against what we would term as the trade unions will be removed by an Amendment which the Secretary of State has later on. The hon. and learned Gentleman believed that he had conclusively proved that both types of organisation, special and unspecial, were equal before the Registrar.
But the true comparison in the Government's treatment of both sets of organisation lies in new Clauses Nos. 9 and 11. New Clause 11 deals with the transfer from the provisional register to the full register, and springs from Clause 74. It is obvious to me that it is in the Government's mind that before trade unions get on the full register they must pass through the provisional register. The relevant provisions and new Clause state that the registrar shall, as soon as he can, construct a special register. Clause 74 states that he shall construct a provisional register. Nowhere in the Bill does it say that as soon as it is passed he shall set up a full register.
I listened carefully to the Solicitor-General, and I am sure that he said that a trade union should first pass through the provisional register before going on the full register. There are words in Clause 74 which lend weight to what I am saying. It would seem to be in the Government's mind that the union should first go on the provisional register. The second move is made under new Clause 11(2), which deals with the power of the Registrar to scrutinise the trade union's rules and to demand amendments if he thinks fit under the threat of cancellation.
8.30 p.m.
New Clause 9 is entirely different. It submits the so-called special organisations to a very simple test. It deals with the respectable, middle-class organisations. It is implicit in the new Clause that mere application to go on the special register is sufficient to get on it. I do not put very much credence in the say-

ing words in the new Clause quoted by the Under-Secretary of State.
Subsection (4) of new Clause 9 provides:
In determining, for the purposes of subsection (3) of this section, whether an organisation fulfils the conditions specified in
another Clause
the registrar shall have regard to the activities actually carried on by the organisation, whether they appear to him to be in accordance with its memorandum and articles of association, or … its charter or letters patent, or not".
That is a very simple test and a very narrow criterion. It is entirely different from that applied under new Clause 11(2), where the bona fide trade union is subjected to the suspicion that there is something wrong with its rules and they must be scrutinised and it will be given only qualified approval. This is clear evidence of class bias.
I said that I would refer to what I regard as the organisational advantages deliberately given to organisations on the special register as opposed to those on the ordinary register. Clause 76 deals with the trade union organisation which is on the provisional register. It will be regarded as a registered organisation only for the purposes of Parts V to VII and of Clause 139. It is in respect of other areas that my hon. Friends have pointed to the organisational dangers—the parts dealing with the right to determine the sole bargaining agent.
On Report, new Clause 6 very subtly but importantly altered the basis on which an application could be made to the Industrial Court. Previously, under Clause 42, the employer, trade union or Secretary of State could independently make an application, but, as the Bill is amended by new Clause 6, a joint application can be made by the trade union and the employers. It is here that we are most concerned about the ability of the organisation on the special register to take distinct organisational advantage in so far as it can pre-empt any other trade union from becoming an applicant for the sole bargaining agency.
In Amendments which the Government have introduced to Clause 46, nothing precludes the provisionally registered trade union or the unregistered trade union from making application for sole bargaining rights, but it must apply for full registration before it can become sole


bargaining agent. The Government have deliberately placed obstacles in the way of bona fide trade unions. That is why I am against new Clauses 8, 9 and 10.
Amendment No. 240 is placed almost last, but on this occasion I hope that the last will be first. The Amendment seeks to delete the discretionary powers given in Schedule 3 to the Registrar. In case my words should be misunderstood outside the Chamber, I make it clear that the Labour Party is opposed to the whole Schedule and also to the special register and the ordinary register. Nevertheless, we have examined the Schedule, but we do not think that the Registrar's powers of exemption should be allowed to continue into legislation. Paragraph 23 could be used in conjunction with the special position of people on the special register to give a distinct advantage to organisations on that register as opposed to bona fide trade unions.
When certain organisations of a special character are singled out for a special register, it must be clear that the Registrar will be entitled, in interpreting the Bill, to believe that he can operate the escape or exemption clause on their behalf as opposed to the bona fide trade union—

Mr. Gower: Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that paragraph 23 could be used by the registrar with benefit to a trade union whose application failed for a technical reason? Might it not, therefore, be damaging to a trade union applicant if paragraph 23 were removed from the Schedule?

Mr. Sillars: It could be if paragraph 23 were worded differently so as to allow for technical exemptions. As paragraph 23 is worded, it does not allow for technical exemptions but puts a wide-ranging power of exemption into the hands of the Registrar.
The thread of the philosophy of the Bill from the point where we mark out the code of practice gives a clear guideline to the registrar that he shall subject bona fide trade unions to the utmost scrutiny, because the criteria applying to them are different from the criteria applying to the organisations on the special register. In my view, the registrar is likely to use his exemption powers in relation to paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Schedule in terms of exemption of people on the special register.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I think that the registrar will treat those on the special register so differently from the unions on the normal register as the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) has suggested. This may have been said before —I have not been present in the Chamber all the time—but we seem to be taking an unconscionable time discussing what to me is a less controversial part of the Bill. If the hon. Member for South Ayrshire had been arguing that there should not be a special register, I imagine that he would have met much criticism from his hon. Friends with profesional interests who were pressing for some difference to be made in respect of their organisations—

Mr. Heffer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that almost every back bencher on the Government side who has spoken has made this point about the length of time which has been spent on these Clauses. I can only assume that they were well briefed on this matter before coming to the Chamber. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to get on to the other Clauses, he need not speak on this one.

Mr. Lewis: I shall be brief, but I see no reason why I should hesitate to make a comment in reply to the hon. Gentleman opposite. I will simply briefly follow the speech made by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire. He said that there was a difference between professional organisations and trade unions. Of course there is a difference now between many professional organisations and trade unions. There is no great change except, I should have thought, a change to the advantage of hon. Members opposite, in that professional organisations, which at present are right outside whatever trade union legislation there is, are now at least brought into the Bill, and are caught in many directions. The fact that they are on a special register which recognises their problems does not put them outside the Bill. They are still within the Bill.
The Royal College of Nursing, for example, has always been the negotiating body within the hospitals and it was never militant until two or three years ago, when it had to be militant because there was a certain amount of recruitment taking place within hospitals, giving it competition. It is, therefore, on this special register because its set-up is rather different from the kind of organisation


which is competing with it, quite properly, within hospitals, on wages and on conditions of work and so on. The work of the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association is to be covered for wages and salaries by a setup which is to be created within the Department.
These organisations have functions outside the normal union bargaining activities and even wider than negotiations on conditions of service. It is clearly because of this that they are on a special register and have asked to be put on a special register. It is for that reason that pressure was put on Members of Parliament to do this.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire said several times that this was a class situation being created by the Government. He spoke about the white collar workers and professional workers against the working class. Does he really believe that the professional worker today, or the white collar worker, would allow himself to be put into the position where he is told that he is not a worker? He is certainly not a bloated capitalist. He is negotiating his wages and salaries in the same way as any worker. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire is a young man. He is old-fashioned. He has not come up to date. He ought to recognise that the future of the trade union movement will be advanced only if it brings the white collar and professional workers within its own ambit and if it can influence them to join these unions. This is what the dispute taking place within the T.U.C. is about. The T.U.C. will remain strong and develop only if it can influence the people the hon. Gentleman has just defined as being related to class—

Mr. Orme: That is the very point we were making earlier. The hon. Gentleman has said that he has not been present all the time. The point was that the T.U.C. were coming to grips with this and were encouraging professional and white collar workers, to broaden the whole base. The Bill and this Clause are narrowing it.

Mr. Lewis: The particular bodies requested that they should have a special register and that their problems should be dealt with within this register. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that if the

T.U.C. and the manual workers' unions do not recognise that those people have special problems, they will never get them working with them. They must recognise these problems to obtain their co-operation.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Heffer: I admire the hon. Gentleman's grand efforts, because he always seems deliberately to miss the point. N.A.L.G.O., N.U.T., N.U.P.E. and A.S.T.M.S. are affiliated to the T.U.C. None of these organisations has asked for a special register. All that these organisations have asked for is to be treated like every other union. They represent the professional classes. They are not asking for special treatment. They are merely asking that they as legitimate trade unions should not be put into a situation different from the others which are asking for a special register.

Mr. Lewis: I agree that the organisations mentioned by the hon. Gentleman are members of the T.U.C. at present. They are only just members, because they are not sure whether they will remain so. They take a rather different view of the Bill from that taken by some other unions.
I again emphasise that unless the T.U.C. and hon. Members opposite representing the large unions within that organisation are prepared to accept differences which must be recognised between some of these other unions, most of which are smaller than the unions which have large memberships—[Laughter.]—they will lose them. Hon. Members opposite can laugh, but I am not making this up on the spur of the moment. These organisations have already indicated that they may leave the T.U.C. if they do not get recognition. I agree that not all of the professional or white-collar unions are relative to the special register, but some are. Some of those representing a field for future recruitment are. Many members of unions already affiliated to the T.U.C. will not take kindly to some of the viewpoints expressed by hon. Members opposite today.
In so far as it is desirable for unions of the white-collar type to co-operate with the other unions, it would help to achieve that end if hon. Members opposite would recognise some of the problems


that they have. The setting up of a special register will help towards eliminating those problems.

Mr. Sillars: The hon. Gentleman has referred several times to the need for the trade unions to understand that white-collar and professional organisations want to co-operate. When representatives of the B.M.A. came to see him about the Bill, did he advise them to co-operate with the trade unions and especially with the T.U.C? The hon. Gentleman talks a great deal of nonsense when he says that N.A.L.G.O. and N.U.T. have threatened to withdraw from the T.U.C.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his point of view. I did not say that those organisations had threatened. I said that, as I understood it, they had indicated that their line was somewhat different from that taken by other unions as reported from Croydon and that, unless they were at the end of the day allowed to take their own line on the Bill—

Mr. Heffer: On registration?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, on registration and what follows from it—they could no longer necessarily go along with the T.U.C. We are living in an industrial society that is becoming more and more sophisticated. The gap between the so-called working-class members of the unions and the white collar workers is scarcely discernible. It is almost nonexistent in terms of salary, type of work, and responsibility. My hon. Friends and I accept that fact. I hope that hon. Members opposite will also accept it; some of their speeches do not indicate that they accept it. One would have thought that we were back in the days when most people wore cloth caps and the rest were members of a privileged community which had no association with them. That distinction no longer applies.
I cannot understand why hon. Members opposite should be so concerned that the Minister is doing something to help professional bodies and similar organisations which have special problems.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The debate has been rather unreal. It seems clear that the proposal deals with special circumstances. There exist bodies of people who may come within the provisions of the Bill but whom no

one would call trade unions. Various developments have brought into being, on the one hand, trade unions representing people who serve under contracts of service and, on the other, associations representing people who are engaged under contracts for services—a distinction that has always existed in this country.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) is wrong to attack the Government for introducing class distinction. The Government are not doing so. If he were attacking them for their policy on the social services—much more sinister than anything in the Bill—I would agree with him.
These distinctions have existed for a long time; they have been created not because of the existence of different classes but because of the enormous differences in conditions under which workers and professional people have had to struggle for recognition. Their historical backgrounds are totally different. I can understand the aim of a party which hopes to use trade unions for political purposes, and wants to draw all professional bodies under the aegis of the Trades Union Congress, because that would give it a greater hold on those organisations. That was the motivation behind the speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire. He referred to the Establishment.
The longer I listen to this debate the more I become convinced that the trade unions are in great danger of taking up the intolerant attitude that was adopted by the Established Church in the 18th century. They are developing a similar belief that everybody must conform, everybody must subscribe, and everybody must come under their aegis.

Mr. Orme: The hon. and learned Member has referred to the width of expression. The T.U.C. has that. People from boiler-makers to town clerks are covered by unions affiliated to the T.U.C. Therefore, why cannot we include the doctors and the nurses?

Mr. Hooson: I have no doubt that the T.U.C. would eventually like to take the place of this House in terms of running the country.
We are discussing a quite simple proposal to deal with problems about which


all hon. Members have been made aware by various bodies whose members are not sure whether they come under the umbrella of the professional organisations or are in danger of being subjected to the same rules as the trade unions. This proposal offers a practical solution to a practical problem.

Mr. Gower: I find it difficult to understand how right hon. and hon. Members opposite can disagree with the kind of argument that we have just heard from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). But their case breaks down even on their own arguments. This machinery is devised to meet the requirements of special organisations of a somewhat different character—

Mr. Murray: The hon. Gentleman has immediately used the word "special". Can he explain why a body like the N.U.S., which is acknowledged to have special problems, is not to be entered on the special register when other bodies are to be?

Mr. Gower: The hon. and learned Gentleman's colleagues have been trying to establish, in my view quite without foundation, that this has some sort of class basis—

Mr. Murray: Hear, hear.

Mr. Gower: If that were the case, one would expect to find nurses and bank officers in a similar category. They are not. The development of the Royal College of Nursing has been on a rather different basis from that of the development of the bank officers' organisation. The bank officers happened to develop as an orthodox trade union although they were engaged in a service industry of a kind which, until recent years, would have been described by right hon. and hon. Members opposite as "white collar", "middle class", or some other form of antiquated phraseology. For other and different reasons, the nurses became associated in a body which was rather different in character from what we understand by a trade union.
Several categories of professional or white collar workers such as teachers and bank officers have developed organisations which are entirely similar to trade unions or which are, in effect, trade unions. They come under the broad

umbrella of trade unions in the Bill. Others in similar occupations have developed differently and, for the reasons referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, are more appropriately dealt with by the special register.
In both kinds of organisations, there has been a disposition to intervene in matters of conditions and of negotiations. That must be admitted. But no one can deny that, in the case of the Royal College of Nursing and similar professional bodies such as the Law Society, negotiations of a trade union character have been a minor part of their activities in some cases. They have developed over the years in a way which is analogous to a professional association which is concerned with education in the law, medicine or nursing. They have been deeply concerned with standards and with the nature of the service that their members render to the community. I do not say that trade unions have not had the same idea, but the organisations which we are discussing have been much more concerned with activities outside the normal duties and functions of trade unions. Therefore, I think it is entirely appropriate that the law should recognise these broad differences of character.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Sillars: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the British Medical Association has spent a larger proportion of its time and effort on non-trade union activities than on wage negotiations? If so, many people just would not believe it.

Mr. Gower: I should not like to make a broad assumption about it, but if the hon. Gentleman refers to all its meetings over the last few decades he would find that that was the case. Whereas there have been periods when it has been deeply involved in matters of salary, there have been more occasions when it has been dealing with other aspects of medical services.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have a most backward Middle Ages outlook. They are going back further in our history. They see a danger or a motive when it does not exist. They think that in some Clauses they can detect a tendency or an inclination by my right hon. Friend to act at variance to their interests. But these new Clauses are an honest attempt to create a special


framework for special organisations whose functions are somewhat different from those of ordinary trade unions. New Clause 9 is designed to afford the machinery to admit these organisations as well into the ambit of the Bill.

Mr. R. Carr: It is extraordinary. On the one hand, we hear from the Opposition of their apparent irresistible urge to get on to discuss all the bits of the Bill which they say have not been discussed. On the other hand, we find them asking for a whole day to discuss these three new Clauses. When we come to new Clause 9 we hear speeches which are in order but which inevitably, because the proposals are so closely linked together, could have been and were made, except by different hon. Members opposite, on new Clause 8. So we go over the same arguments, the same speeches, which tally ill with the supposed desire of the Opposition to get on to discuss the rest of the Bill.
Another thing which one cannot help noticing is that, on the one hand, we are told by the Opposition that registration is some terrible iniquitous thing designed by Satan to torment and to hamstring trade unions in all kinds of ways and, on the other hand, we are accused of class favouritism because we make this terrible business of registration more easily available than it would otherwise be to certain bodies. This is another example of the extraordinary schizophrenia from which the Opposition suffer. How can it be favouritism to make registration available to the bodies about which we are talking in these new Clauses, and particularly in Clause 9?
I repeat that one of the basic principles of the Bill is that in the conduct of industrial relations some of the most important rights and privileges which give greater power in the community and in our economy should be limited to organisations which satisfy certain basic principles and have rules on certain specified matters. Where organisations satisfy those conditions and, in the public interest, subject themselves to a measure of public supervision, then we say that it is right that they should have certain important rights and privileges. Hence our proposal of registration.
Whatever the Opposition may say about the fact that the form in which we

are putting forward this proposal is different from theirs, not only was the basic principle put forward by them when they were in power, but it was recommended by the Donovan Commission. This is why we are going in for registration. We believe that registration, if we are to go in for it, should be available to all organisations involved in the conduct of industrial relations.

Mr. Harold Walker: The right hon. Gentleman keeps referring to the provisions of the Labour Government's Bill. Would he tell us where in that Bill or in "In Place of Strife" there were the awful consequences of non-registration which are contained in his Bill?

Mr. Carr: I did not say that it followed it precisely, but the basic ideas of registration were there. I would agree that we are nearer to the Donovan Commission in this than were the hon. Gentleman's Government. We are following the majority, if not the unanimous, recommendation of the Commission and the basic principles of the recommendation of a minority of the Commission about the differentiation in the principles available to registered and non-registered bodies.
We believe in registration in the form proposed in the Bill and we think that it should be available to all organisations involved in the conduct of industrial relations. If we are to do that, we have become convinced, as the result of representations made to us and consultations which we have had and which we have been willing to have with the T.U.C. or any of the individual unions as well—it is not our fault if we did not have them—that, in order to make registration available to many of the bodies which do—not "wish to" but already do—conduct industrial relations, this special register is necessary.
Without it, we should have to say to these bodies, such as—to give one example which has been mentioned frequently today—the Royal College of Nursing, that either, for no good purpose and to do no good to anyone else in the community, they would have to give up their previous practice of industrial relations, or, alternatively, they would have to give up the status, the activities which they cherish and which are doing no harm to anyone.
In other words, without this special register, far from refraining from giving some special privilege to these bodies, we should be imposing on them a grave handicap compared with the position which they occupy today. Either they would have to give up their industrial relations activities or they would have to give up their status as companies, chartered bodies and so on.
The hon. Member and others have tried to claim that we are discriminating in the registration process. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) said in particular that there was no provisional special register. These lucky, favoured bodies, he was implying, could get straight on to the permanent register. Let me deal with that in two parts.
First of all, why is there no provisional special register? Mainly, almost entirely, it is because of the nature of the bodies with which we are dealing. The very fact that they are already either companies registered under the Companies Acts or chartered bodies means that they have already been subjected to the very close scrutiny of their rules and constitutions, or they would not be companies or chartered bodies.

Mr. Sillars: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us, then, whether or not Clause 71 will be applied to the organisations on the special register? The Clause says that, as soon as is practicable after the issuing of the registration certificate, the rules shall be examined.

Mr. Carr: Yes, indeed—

Mr. Sillars: Why?

Mr. Carr: I will come to this in a moment.
That is one answer to the question of why there is no provisional special register. If I may put the answer the other way around, if the ordinary trade union, the bona fide trade union, as the hon. Gentleman chose to call it, or the legitimate union, as other hon. Gentlemen chose to call it, wishes to go straight on the permanent register, without having to go through the provisional register, that is open to it under Clause 64.
There is nothing to say that an ordinary trade union must go on the provisional register. It is merely that the provisional

register is there for two main purposes, one of which is that all bodies which are at present registered with the present Registrar of Friendly Societies will automatically be put on the provisional register and so, without having to take any overt act, be automatically within the scope of the Bill, though, by Clause 76, they will not have all the privileges of the Bill, nor its obligations, because those are confined to fully registered people. But if the ordinary trade union wishes to take the intiative and go straight on the permanent register, it has a perfect right under Clause 64 to do so.
I assure the House once more, although goodness knows, my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary have done so often enough already—that the degree of supervision, or the rigour of examination of the rules will be just as great for a body on the special register as for one on the ordinary register.

Mr. Rose: The right hon. Gentleman says that the rigour will be the same; but if he casts his eye on subsection (4) he will see that it is possible for a body on the special register to carry out activities which are not provided for by the memorandum or articles of association; in other words, to go beyond the functions for which it was formed. Is the Secretary of State not aware that the real objection here is not to the special register per se, but to the special register combined with the agency shop provision to provide monopoly negotiating rights for outmoded bodies rather than new, rising professional unions?

Mr. Carr: There is no specially favoured status there. If the so-called legitimate or bona fide trade union in medicine, engineering, or the like, can obtain support, it can apply for agency shop rights just as much as any of these bodies here. The hon. Member can make faces like that if he wishes to, but it is a fact. These bodies will have these agency shop provisions only if they ask for them and if they can maintain majority support of the workers in the activity involved. Also, minorities can at two-yearly intervals challenge, which is something they cannot do now. So it is nonsense to say that it is putting these traditional bodies in some favoured position. What hon. Members opposite are seeking is to see


them put in an unfavoured position compared with the present position.

Mr. Rose: The Secretary of State has missed the point. There is to be an ossification of the existing structure. For instance, the Medical Practitioners Union is making inroads into the B.M.A. Can the right hon. Gentleman say, how once an agency shop has been established by the B.M.A., in this situation how it is conceivable for a rising but very small body like the Medical Practitioners Union ever to achieve majority status? The right hon. Gentleman knows that this provision is expressly designed to prevent the organic development of trade unionism among professional people, and particularly amongst doctors, nurses, and the like.

Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman should remember, if not what he has said, what his right hon. and hon. Friends have said in some of our debates. He says that the provisions of challenge are too inadequate to allow the growth of a little but growing union, yet earlier we were told that that right was a terrible menace because it allowed fragmentation. I was accused of creating a Trots Charter because the Bill would give the right to an up-and-coming union to establish itself. Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot have it both ways, though that is what they constantly seek. One moment the Bill is the devil, and the next it is the exact opposite. Hon. Members must decide which foot they are standing on.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. McNamara: We have never really said that the right hon. Gentleman deserved to be canonised.

Mr. Carr: I absolve the hon. Gentleman from that. Nevertheless, he and his hon. Friends cannot have it both ways on so many points.
There is no discrimination here because these provisions, along with Schedule 3, apply just as much to an organisation that goes on the special register as to one that goes on the ordinary register. The registrar will look at the rules of the one which goes on the special register with the same rigour, requirements and standards as the one which goes on the ordinary register.

Mr. Murray: The right hon. Gentleman says there is nothing sinister about

registration under the special register procedure. If that is so, and if it is just a supplementary way of getting on the ordinary register, why not call it a "supplementary register" instead of a "special register"?

Mr. Carr: Perhaps the answer is simply that I did not think of it. It is just a means of distinguishing between the two, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman had tabled an amendment to that effect I would no doubt have thought about it seriously. I assure him that there is nothing sinister about it.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have said that we are intending by this special register procedure to narrow the field for the activities of what they have called "legitimate" trade unions. But this is nonsense, because the position of the legitimate trade unions compared with that of the professional bodies is being kept on a level. Both are being given an opportunity to register. It would be unfair and discriminatory to give one the right to register but deny it to the other. We are treating them equally, and, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said, we are providing a practical proposal to meet a practical problem.

Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman spent a considerable time going over familiar ground, and he found that necessary not only because this part of the Bill hangs together but because the whole Bill hangs together. Whether or not we like it, the whole thing is cross-referenced to and fro. Indeed, it is impossible to refer to one Clause without being referred to another.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there was nothing sinister about these provisions and that my hon. Friends were looking for hidden motives. He went on to say that the Government were placing legitimate trade unions on a par with professional bodies. If our suspicions were groundless, if there were nothing sinister in it, he could settle the matter at once by suggesting, instead of a special register for special organisations, that the existing professional bodies and the like could go on the ordinary register provided for under the Bill. But that he has not done.
As for the terminology of class distinction, I wish to make the point clear. When


they talk in terms of class distinction, my hon. Friends mean that the Government are trying to use some of the existing professional organisations in a class sense against the trade unions.
We all recognise that in today's world the manager of a factory or of an organisation can be just as much a part of legitimate trade unionism as the man who sweeps the floor. This is the new situation developing in the trade union world. I pointed out in a previous debate that the biggest growth sector in the trade union movement has been among professional and white-collar workers. This trend will continue, for the status, function and role of white-collar workers has greatly changed as a result of the advance of technology. Everyone recognises that and knows that it will be the pattern for the future. So we accept that trade unionism now goes from the highest to the lowest, as it were, in various industries, trades and professions.
The great argument we have about these Clauses is that it is precisely legitimate trade unionism, or bona fide trade unionism, whatever one calls it, which now could be—I do not say will be—denied the opportunity of advance as a result of what the Government propose.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) made some interesting points in this connection. He wandered in, he said, and made a couple of observations because he had not heard the whole debate, but I am most grateful to him for wandering in, for in a few moments he revealed the real thinking of hon. Members opposite, which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench have been trying to conceal.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, explaining what he said the trouble was, took the example of the Royal College of Nursing, an old-fashioned, old-established organisation. Then, he said, the trade unions started to recruit. Competition started, C.O.H.S.E., N.U.P.E. and N.A.L.G.O. started getting members. There was a demand by the nurses for better wages and conditions. So overnight, as it were, the hon. Gentleman said, the Royal College of Nursing was transformed into a militant body.
That is true. The Royal College was transformed into a militant body because legitimate trade unions were moving into the field. The same happened in relation to professional engineers and managers, in whose world for years there had been staff and managerial associations. Then that wicked man Mr. Clive Jenkins appeared out of the clouds to start organising the managers.

Mr. R. Carr: If it is so good that Mr. Clive Jenkins and his union should be able to compete in this field, why was it so bad when he tried to compete in the field of white-collar workers in the steel industry?

Mr. Alex Eadie: Bridlington.

Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to equate two different situations. The Bridlington Agreement is in existence, and under it the trade unions have ironed out these matters between themselves.

Mr. Orme: Voluntarily.

Mr. Heffer: Yes, and the General Secretary of A.S.T.M.S. and his executive accepted the decision.
I accept that the professional bodies to which we have referred began with the best of motives and still have the best of motives. We are not saying that the professional bodies which lay down professional standards and do all sorts of good works are not legitimate bodies that should not have a membership. But there has also grown up in them a particular type of activity which is really the function of a trade union. It was the trade union organisations that were pressing in that direction.
We are also discussing Amendment No. 240, which seeks to eliminate from Schedule 3 paragraph 23, concerning the registrar's power of exemption. It is not that we accept the principle of registration—we are totally opposed to it—but if the right hon. Gentleman is serious in saying that he does not wish professional organisations to be put on a different level, but to be on the same level as the legitimate trade unions, he can accept our Amendment. That would have the effect of putting them on the same level, in that the registrar's power of exemption would be eliminated. In that sense the


two bodies would be on precisely the same level. We believe that the power of exemption was primarily put in to assist employers' organisations and not the trade unions. It could certainly be used to assist professional bodies even further than the provisions of the special register. On that basis the Amendment could and should be accepted.
The Minister said that if professional organisations were not on the special register we should be imposing a grave handicap on them. What about the grave handicap being put upon the legitimate, bona fide trade union movement, the

grave handicap of registration in the first place, the grave handicap of the Bill, and the grave handicap that the old-fashioned professional organisations could under certain conditions be a barrier stopping the advancement of legitimate trade unionism?

For all these reasons, my hon. Friends and I will vote against giving the Clause a Second Reading.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 240.

Division No. 266.]
AYES
[9.29 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Dean, Paul
Holland, Philip


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Holt, Miss Mary


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hooson, Emlyn


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hornby, Richard


Astor, John
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Atkins, Humphrey
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigare)


Awdry, Daniel
Dykes, Hugh
Howell, David (Guildford)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Eden, Sir John
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Balniel, Lord
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hunt, John


Batsford, Brian
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Beamish, Cot. Sir Tufton
Elliott, R. W. (N's'tle-upon-Tyne.N.)
Iremonger, T. L.


Bell, Ronald
Emery, Peter
James, David


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Eyre, Reginald
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Farr, John
Jessel, Toby


Benyon, W.
Fell, Anthony
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Biffen, John
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Jones, Arthur (Northa[...]ts, S.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
J opting, Michael


Blaker, Peter
Fookes, Miss Janet
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Fortescue, Tim
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Body, Richard
Fowler, Norman
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine


Boscawen, Robert
Fox, Marcus
Kershaw, Anthony


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford A Stone)
Kimball, Marcus


Bowden, Andrew
Fry, Peter
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Gardner, Edward
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Braine, Bernard
Gibson-Watt, David 
Kinsey, J. R.


Bray, Ronald
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kirk, Peter


Brewis, John

Kitson, Timothy


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Knox, David


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Codber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Lambton, Antony


Bryan, Paul
Goodhart, Philip
Lane, David


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Goodhew, Victor
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Buck, Antony
Gorst, John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Bullaus, Sir Eric
Cower, Raymond
Le Marchant, Spencer


Burden, F. A.
Gray, Hamish
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Green, Alan
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Grieve, Percy
Longden, Gilbert


Carlisle, Mark
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Loveridge, John


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Grylls, Michael
MacArthur, Ian


Chapman, Sydney
Glimmer, Selwyn
McCrindle, R. A.


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gurden, Harold
McLaren, Martin


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McMaster, Stanley


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hall-Davis, A. C. F.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Cockeram, Eric
Hannam, John (Exeter)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Cooke, Robert
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maddan, Martin


Coombs, Derek
Harrison, Col. Sir HarwOOd (Eye)
Madel, David


Cooper, A. E.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Maglnnis, John E.


Condle, John
Hastings, Stephen
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Cortfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Havers, Michael
Marten, Neil


Cormack, Patrick
Hay, John
Mather, Carol


Costain, A. P.
Hayhoe, Barney
Maude, Angus


Critchley, Julian
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mawby, Ray


Crouch, David
Hicks, Robert
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Crowder, F. P.
Higgins, Terence L.
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Curran, Charles
Hilcy, Joseph
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


d'Avigdor-Gotdsmid, Sir Henry
Hill. John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,MaJ.-Gen.Jamee
Hill James (Southampton, Test)
Miscampbell, Norman




Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow.Cathcart)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side


Moate, Roger
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Molyneaux, James
Ronton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Tebbit, Norman


Money, Ernie
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Temple, John M.


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Monro, Hector
Ridsdale, Julian
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Montgomery, Fergus
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Ceoffrey
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


More, Jasper
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Morgan, Garaint (Denbigh)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Tilney, John


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Trew, Peter


Mudd, David
Rost, Peter
Tungencmat, Christopher


Mutton, Oscar
Russell, Sir Ronald
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
St. John-Stevas, Norman
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Neave, Airey
Scott, Nicholas
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Scott-Hopkins, James
Vickers, Dame Joan


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Sharpies, Richard
Waddington, David


Normarvton, Tom
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wall, Patrick


Nott, John
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Walters, Dennis


Onslow, Cranky
Simeons, Charles
Ward, Dame Irene


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Sinclair, Sir George
Warren, Kenneth


Orr, Capt., L. P. S.
Skeet, T. H. H.
Weatherili, Bernard


Osborn, John
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Soref, Harold
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Speed, Keith
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Silence, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Sproat, Iain
Wilkinson, John


Percival, Ian
Stainton, Keith
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Pink, R. Bonner
Steel, David
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Pounder, Rafton
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Woodnutt, Mark


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, w.)
Worsley, Marcus


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Stokes, John
Younger, Hn. George


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom



Quennell, Miss J. M.
Sutcliffe, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Raison, Timothy
Tapsell, Peter
Mr Walter Clegg and


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Mr. Paul Hawkins.


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter






NOES


Abse, Leo
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dalyell, Tarn
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Allen, Scholefield
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Davidson, Arthur
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Armstrong, Ernest
Davies, Dentil (Llanelly)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Ashley, Jack
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Ashton, Joe
Davies, llor (Gower)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Atkinson, Norman
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Hardy, Peter


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Deakine, Eric
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Barnes, Michael
Delargy, H. J.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Barnett, Joel
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hattersley, Roy


Beaney, Alan
Dempsey, James
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Doig, Peter
Heffer, Eric S.


Bldwell, Sydney
Dormand, J. D.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bishop, E. S.
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Huckficid, Leslie


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Driberg, Tom
Hughes, Rt. Hn. ciedwyn (Anglesey)


Booth, Albert
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Bradley, Tom
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hunter, Adam


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Ellis, Tom
Janrrer, Creville


Buchan, Norman
English, Michael
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Evans, Fred
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Femyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Campbell, 1. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham, Lady wood)
John, Brynmor


Cant, R. B.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Carmichael, Neil
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hu!l, W.)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Foley, Maurice
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccfes)
Foot, Michael
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Forrester, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Clark, David (Cclne Valley)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Freeson, Reginald
Jones, T. Atec (Rhondda, W.)


Cohen, Stanley
Garrett, W. E.
Kaufman, Gerald


Coleman, Donald
Gilbert, Dr. John
Kerr, Russell


Concannon, J. D,
Grnsburg, David
Kirmock, Neil


Conlan, Bernard
Golding, John
Lambie, David


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Cordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lamond, James


Crawshaw, Richard
Courlay, Harry
Latham, Arthur







Lawson, George
Murray, Ronald King
Spearing, Nigel


Leadbitter, Ted
Ogden, Eric
Spriggs, Leslie


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
O'Halloran, Michael
Stallard, A. W.


Leonard, Dick
O'Malley, Brian
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Lector, Mist Joan
Oram, Bert
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Orbach, Maurice
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Orme, Stanley
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Oswald, Thomas
Strang, Gavin


Lipton, Marcus
Palmer, Arthur
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Lomas, Kenneth
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Loughlin, Charles
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Swain, Thomas


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Pavitt, Laurie
Taverne, Dick


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George(Cardiff, W.)


Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


McBride, Neil
Pentland, Norman
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


McCartney, Hugh
Perry, Ernest C.
Tinn, James


McElhone, Frank
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Tomney, Frank


McGuire, Michael
Prescott, John
Torney, Tom


Mackenzie, Gregor
Price, J T. (Westhoughton)
Tuck, Raphael


Mackie, John
Probert, Arthur
Urwin, T. W.


Mackintosh, John P.
Rankin, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Maclennan, Robert
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


MacPherson, Malcolm
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wallace, George


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Richard, Ivor
Watkins, David


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Weitzman, David


Marks, Kenneth
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wellbeloved, James


Marquand, David
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Meacher, Michael
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Whitehead, Phillip


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Roper, John
Whitlock, William


Mendelson, John
Rose, Paul B.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Millan, Bruce
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Molloy, William
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Sillars, James
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Silverman, Julius



Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Skinner, Dennis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Small, William
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Moyle, Roland
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Clause accordingly read a Second time.

Mr. McNamara: I beg to move Amendment (qqqqq) to the proposed Clause, in line 17, leave out 'appear to him to be' and insert 'are'.
The Clause raises a matter of principle about which we are concerned. This is a small but fundamental Amendment. The Government are proposing a subjective test for the Registrar. All that he has to do is to have a hunch or a feeling and make a superficial scrutiny of a situation. We believe that the Registrar, in reaching a conclusion, should have a set of criteria and objective tests by which he judges a situation.
This is not a question of banging the class drum. We merely demand that reasons should be adduced explaining why a decision has been made. If we were asking any favours of the Government, this would be one which they could grant. As we are not asking for favours, the Government do not grant this one, we shall divide on the Amendment.

Mr. Hooson: I support the hon. Member Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr.

McNamara) in this small but important Amendment. The new Clause allows the Registrar to decide matters on an entirely subjective basis. One Registrar may decide one thing and another may decide something else without reference to an objective test.
It is arguable that this is a question of semantics only, but it goes deeper. It is necessary to establish an objective test, because if some organisations are to be refused registration there must be a principle on which they are refused. It is not good enough simply to provide that certain things shall "appear" to the Registrar. I warmly support the Amendment.

9.45 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: If the new Clause meant what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said it meant, I would have some sympathy with the Amendment. But the matters to which the Registrar must have regard and in respect of which he must apply an objective test are those specified


in the third line of subsection (4), which says that the
registrar shall have regard to the activities actually carried on by the organization…
It is on the nature of the activities carried on that his decision depends. The question he has to ask himself in deciding whether or not the organisation qualifies is: what are the activities actually carried on? Do those activities actually carried on amount to the regulation of relations between workers of that description and employers? If the activities amount as a matter of objective test to the regulation of relations in that way, he regards the organisation as qualifying. I hear the right hon. Lady supporting by a mutter that which has been said by both hon. Members.
The point about the phrase in commas:
whether they appear to him to be in accordance with its memorandum and articles of association
is to divert the Registrar's attention away from an analysis which he might unnecessarily have to undertake. When he looks at the articles or the charter, some doubt may be raised as to whether, by carrying on activities involving the regulation of relations between workers and employers the organisation is or is not acting in accordance with the memorandum and articles of association. That is something which he is adjured to disregard. The matter which he has to decide is the activities actually carried on by the organisation.
When he is having regard to the activities actually carried on, he may say that he can see that the organisation is to this extent or to that extent trying to regulate relations between its members and employers. When he sees that, as a matter of fact, it is undertaking those activities, he could be diverted into a further analysis of whether the undertaking of those activities is or is not in accordance with the memorandum and articles of association. He may say that that raises a difficult question. If one looks at the provisions in many of the charters limiting the extent to which these organisations can or cannot undertake trade union activities, if one looks at the corresponding provisions in the memorandum and articles of some of the companies that qualify, the difficult question arises of whether or not the undertaking of industrial relations

activities does or does not infringe the original memorandum and articles, but that is something which the Registrar need not concern himself with. He need not and should not be concerned with whether it appears to him that the organisation is or is not proscribed by its memorandum, articles or charter from undertaking those activities. It is a matter between the organisation and its maker. It may or may not be infringing the obligations imposed upon it by the Companies Act or by the terms of its charter. It would be interesting to consider that question, and it might be open to other people to raise it before the Companies Court, but it is irrelevant to this question. All he has to say is: is this body conducting activities of the kind which qualify it for registration?

Mr. Gower: I take my hon. and learned Friend's point, but might not the confusion which has arisen be due to the two words "or not" at the end? Would the wording be improved if it were:
whether or not they appear to him to be in accordance with…
Alternatively, could other wording to substituted for this awkward "or not" at the end?

The Solicitor-General: I see my hon. Friend's point, but I hesitate to say whether his Amendment is acceptable. The object of the exercise is clear. The Registrar need not decide whether the activities are or are not in accordance with the memorandum, articles or charter.

Mr. Hooson: Do I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman aright, that if the Registrar gleans the superficial or prima facie impression that the activities are in accordance with the memorandum, that is sufficient?

The Solicitor-General: No.

Mr. Hooson: That is, what, virtually, the hon. and learned Gentleman has been saying.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Member has not grasped the point, I fear. I shall return to it. It is not a question of whether the activities are or are not superficially in accordance with the memorandum and articles. That does not affect the question which the Registrar has to ask himself, which is: "Is the organisation conducting activities


of the kind which would qualify for registration as a matter of fact?" Is it in fact? The right hon. Lady says that this does not say so. New Clause 8 says:
In determining, for the purposes of subsection (3) of this section, whether an organisation fulfils the conditions specified…
That is the question. Do its activities include the regulation of relations between workers and employers?
In answering the question, the Registrar
…shall have regard to the activities actually carried on by the organization…".
He sees what it is doing and has to decide this as an objective question of fact. He has to decide what the organisation's activities are.
There then can be raised a quite separate question, irrelevant to the question which he is asking himself—whether what it is doing is or is not in accord with its memorandum, articles or charter. On that, he is not required or invited to trouble himself with this question. He could say, "It appears to me, on a superficial impression, as though what this body is actually doing may be, in one form or another, infringing its memorandum, articles or charter, but that is not a question with which I need concern myself. The only question with which I need concern myself is what actually are the activities that it is undertaking".
It is for others, at a different place and a different time, if they wish, to say, "What you are actually doing is in conflict with your memoranda and articles". That is a question which can be raised elsewhere. It is not something with which the registrar need concern himself. That is why it is put on one side. His superficial impression of that is something with which he need not trouble himself. He comes back to the main question of what are the activities carried on by the organisation.

Mr. Murray: Surely the Solicitor-General cannot have it both ways. If what he is saying now is correct, it seems to follow inexorably that the words after "organisation" in subsection (4) are unnecessary, because the inquiry stops there, and the Solicitor-General says that it goes no further. If the remaining words "or not" are necessary, then plainly the words "have regard to" earlier in the subsection must open the

possibility that what the Registrar is being instructed to do may be merely a superficial expression of impression between a description of what the activities are said to be and the actual memorandum, charter or letters patent. That would be an a priori exercise in which one would he simply construing what the description of activities is and what the memorandum should do. I accept that that may be irrelevant. It seems that the Solicitor-General cannot avoid this dilemma. Whichever horn he exposes, he is caught The Amendment exactly fits the point. If the words "appear to him to be" are deleted and the word "are" is inserted, this makes it clear that some factual inquiry has to be undertaken. I understand that to be accepted by the Solicitor-General.

The Solicitor-General: I do not wish to appear uncomprehending, because we are here concerned with quite a narrow point. The question that the registrar has to decide is; what does it do? He has not to worry himself about the question, even if what it does is, or appears to be, or appears as though it might be, in conflict with the object as set down. That is the question which he has to ask himself. I do not identify the dilemma which the hon. Gentleman identifies for me. He is right in saying that if we stopped at line 17 the message would merely be
In determining…whether an organisation fulfils the condition…the registrar shall have regard to the activities actually carried on by the organisation",
but, lest he should be confronted by the appearance that the activities are going beyond, are outside, or are in conflict with, the objects as defined in the memorandum or articles, he is told, "Worry yourself not about that. Whether the articles appear to be in accordance with or in conflict with the memorandum or articles is not a question with which you need trouble yourself."

Mr. Murray: With respect, it would have to be "whether or not". The "or not" would have to come right after "whether".

The Solicitor-General: Both my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) appear to be marching together on


matters of drafting; and, plainly, if the provision has given as much difficulty to hon. Members as it appears to have done, it is something which should be looked at again. Beyond that I cannot go. The intention, I think, is clear, that one looks to the question: what is it actually doing?

Mr. Gower: I do not support the Amendment, but I think that some alteration of this wording is needed. I do not think that the Amendment would accomplish what is necessary, namely, to clear up the uncertainty due to the addition of these peculiar words "or not" at the very end. The best thing would be to reword the latter part in a separate sentence.

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend makes the same point. The intention is not that the Registrar should worry his head about questions of compliance or non-compliance with the articles or objects of the organisation. That would raise very difficult questions outside the scope of this legislation. We do not wish him to be concerned with that. That is the object of these provisions. The questions he has to ask himself are these: what are the activities? Do they as carried on come within the provisions of new Clause 8(3)(b)?
I do not wish to say more about it than that, except to repeat that, as it appears to have given rise to anxieties of drafting rather than of objectives, I will see that it is looked at again.

Mr. Rose: The Solicitor-General has succeeded in tying himself in a curious legal knot. This is not a purely legalistic Amendment and substituting the objective for the subjective test provides a safeguard against what could be an arbitrary decision of the Registrar of ineligibility for registration. This must be seen in the light of the astonishing power of exemption in paragraph 23 of Schedule 3.
The Solicitor-General will agree that, as the words stand, the Registrar has virtually unfettered discretion in deciding whether the activities carried on by an organisation are within the scope of the memorandum and articles of association or the charter or letters patent, or not. Earlier on, the Secretary of State seemed

to indicate that it would not matter whether an organisation was acting within the scope of its charter for the purposes of registration. If this is so, it is a fantastic discrimination against ordinary trade unions that, whereas one of these organisations may act outside the scope of its charter and may do something that it was not incorporated to do, a trade union has to comply with the most stringent provisions with regard to registration.
Then there comes the question of appeal; because there is an appeal from the Registrar in all cases to the National Industrial Relations Court. But in deciding an appeal an objective itself must be necessary. The words as they stand virtually preclude the N.I.R.C. from applying any objective criteria in overruling the Registrar's subjective view. This, again, would seem to be in contradistinction to the Government's desire to make the N.I.R.C. the arbiter in matters touching trade unions, whereas here complete scope is left for the arbitrary decision of the Registrar. Here we see the difference in approach to professional bodies as against ordinary trade unions, in matters of registration.
Clauses 70 to 79 give power to the Registrar to investigate complaints made by members of bodies which presumably would now include the B.M.A. or the Bar Council, under subsection (2). I shall be interested to hear from the Solicitor-General whether, under Clause 79, as a result of subsection (4) of the new Clause the Registrar can now interfere with the manifestly archaic powers of the British Medical Association's Disciplinary Committee, because there is a growing feeling among the public that this is a crusty, Victorian body which is self-perpetuating and which has little sensitivity to the real problems—

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member appears to be in some confusion. The Disciplinary Committee of the General Medical Council is a statutory Body, first set up under the 1857 Act and re-established under more recent legislation. It has nothing to do with the British Medical Association. The Disciplinary Committee is a statutory body, set up by the House and quite distinct from the British Medical Association.

Mr. Rose: I take the hon. and learned Member's point. He is distinguishing between two different types of organisation—one an established professional organisation, which appears to be allowed to act outside the scope of its own charter—and a new type of trade union, such as the Medical Practitioners' Union, organised under the umbrella of the A.S.T.M.S., which will now be precluded from growing because of the enforcement of what will be virtually an agency shop giving monopoly powers to the British Medical Association.
With all my misgivings about the N.I.R.C. I should not like a decision to be taken by the Registrar without a right of appeal as to whether the organisation concerned was acting ultra vires according to whether it was carrying on activities outside the scope of those for which it was formed. If we maintain a subjective criterion in relation to the Registrar it precludes any appeal to an impartial body, because one cannot appeal against a subjective decision.

Subsection (4) of the new Clause, which enjoins the Registrar to have regard to
the activities actually carried on by the organisation
seems to be a charter for discrimination by the Registrar, if he so desires, on behalf of those who already have privileges. By seeking to delete, as the Amendment would do, the words
appear to him to be
and to substitute the simple word "are", we are putting forward a reasonable proposition which should commend itself to the Solicitor-General and to anybody who is fair-minded and considers that unfettered administrative discretion is not something that the House should favour.

For that reason I urge the Solicitor-General to make a concession on this small point and to accept the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made to the proposed Clause:—

The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 289.

Division No. 267.]
AYES
[l0.4 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dalyell, Tam
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Allen, Scholcfield
Davidson, Arthur
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Armstrong, Ernest
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hardy, Peter


Ashley, Jack
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Ashton, Joe
Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Atkinson, Norman
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hattersley, Roy


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Deakins, Eric
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Barnes, Michael
Delargy, H. J,
Heffer, Eric S.


Barnett, Joel
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hooson, Emlyn


Beaney, Alan
Dempsey, James
Horam, John


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Doig, Peter
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bidwell, Sydney
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Bishop, E. S.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Huckfield, Leslie


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Driberg, Tom
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Booth, Albert
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hunter, Adam


Bradley, Tom
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
lrvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur(Edge Hill)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Ellis, Tom
Janner, Greville


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
English, Michael
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)


Buchan, Norman
Evans, Fred
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
John, Brynmor


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Fishier, Mrs.Doris(B'ham, Ladywood)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-HuH, W.)


Cant, R. B.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Carmichad, Neil
Foley, Maurice
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Foot, Michael
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Forrester, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Jons, Gwynoro (Garmarthen)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Freeson, Reginald
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Garrett, W. E.
Judd, Frank


Cohen, Stanley
Gilbert, Dr. John
Kaufman, Gerald


Coleman, Donald
Ginsburg, David
Kelley, Richard


Concannon, J. D.
Golding, John
Kerr, Russell


Conlan, Bernard
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Kinnock, Neil


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Gourlay, Harry
Lambie, David


Crawshaw, Richard
Grant, George, (Morpeth)
Lamond, James


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Latham, Arthur


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Lawson, George




Leadbitter, Ted
Ogden, Eric
Spriggs, Leslie


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
O'Halloran, Michael
Stallard, A. W.


Leonard, Dick
O'Malley, Brian
Steel, David


Lestor, Miss Joan
Oram, Bert
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Lever, Rt, Hn. Harold
Orbach, Maurice
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Orme, Stanley
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Oswald, Thomas
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Lipton, Marcus
Palmer, Arthur
Strang, Gavin


Lomas, Kenneth
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Loughlin, Charles
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Pavitt, Laurie
Swain, Thomas


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Taverne, Dick


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, w.)


McBricle, Neil
Pentland, Norman
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


McCartney, Hugh
Perry, Ernest G.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


McElhone, Frank
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Tinn, James


McGuire, Michael
Prescott, John
Tomney, Frank


Mackenzie, Gregor
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Torney, Tom


Mackie, John
Probert, Arthur
Tuck, Raphael


Mackintosh, John P.
Rankin, John
Urwin, T. W.


Maclennan, Robert
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Wainwright, Edwin


McNamara, J. Kevin
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


MacPherson, Malcolm
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Richard, Ivor
Wallace, George


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Watkins, David


Marks, Kenneth
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Weitzman, David


Marquand, David
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wellbeloved, James


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Meacher, Michael
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Roper, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Mendelson, John
Rose, Paul B.
Whitlock, William


Millan, Bruce
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Molloy, William
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Sillars, James
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Silverman, Julius
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Skinner, Dennis



Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Small, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Moyle, Roland
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Murray, Ronald King






NOES


Adley, Robert
Carlisle, Mark
Fidler, Michael


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Chapman, Sydney
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Astor, John
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fookes, Miss Janet


Atkins, Humphrey
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fowler, Norman


Awdry, Daniel
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fox, Marcus


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Clegg, Walter
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)


Balniel, Lord
Cockerman, Eric
Fry, Peter


Batsford, Brian
Cooke, Robert
Gardner, Edward


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Coombs, Derek
Gibson-Watt, David


Bell, Ronald
Cooper, A. E.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Cordle, John
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Benyon, W.
Cormack, Patrick
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Costain, A. P.
Goodhart, Philip


Biffen, John
Critchley, Julian
Goodhew, Victor


Biggs-Davison, John
Crouch, David
Gorst, John


Blaker, Peter
Crowder, F. P.
Cower, Raymond


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Curran, Charles
Gray, Hamish


Body, Richard
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Green, Alan


Boscawen, Robert
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen, Jack
Grieve, Percy


Bossom, Sir Clive
Dean, Paul
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Bowden, Andrew
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Grylis, Michael


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Gummer, Selwyn


Braine, Bernard
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Gurden, Harold


Bray, Ronald
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Brewis, John
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Dykes, Hugh
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Eden, Sir John
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Bryan, Paul
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Buck, Antony
Emery, Peter
Hastings, Stephen


Bullus, Sir Eric
Eyre, Reginald
Havers, Michael


Burden, F. A.
Farr, John
Hay, John


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fell, Anthony
Hayhoe, Barney


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward







Hicks, Robert
Miscampbell, Norman
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Higgins, Terence L.
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Hiley, Joseph
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Simeons, Charles


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Moate, Roger
Sinclair, Sir George


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Molyneaux, James
Skeet, T. H. H.


Holland, Philip
Money, Ernie
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Holt, Miss Mary
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Soref, Harold


Hornby, Richard
Monro, Hector
Speed, Keith


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Montgomery, Fergus
Spence, John


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
More, Jasper
Sproat, Iain


Howell, David (Guildford)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Stainton, Keith


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hunt, John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Mudd, David
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Murton, Oscar
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


James, David
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Stokes, John


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Neave, Airey
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Jessel, Toby
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Sutcliffe, John


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Normanton, Tom
Tapsell, Peter


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Nott, John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Onslow, Cranley
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Kershaw, Anthony
Osborn, John
Tebbit, Norman


Kimball, Marcus
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Temple, John M.


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Kinsey, J. R.
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, w.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Kirk, Peter
Percival, Ian
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon S.)


Kitson, Timothy
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Tilney, John


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Knox, David
Pink, R. Bonner
Trew, Peter


Lambton, Antony
Pounder, Rafton
Tugendhat, Christopher


Lane, David
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Price, David (Eastleigh)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Le Marchant, Spencer
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Vickers, Dame Joan


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Waddington, David


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Raison, Timothy
Wall, Patrick


Longden, Gilbert
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Walters, Dennis


Loveridge, John
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Ward, Dame Irene


MacArthur, Ian
Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)
Warren, Kenneth


McCrindle, R. A.
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Weatherill, Bernard


McLaren, Martin
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


McMaster, Stanley
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Ridsdale, Julian
Wilkinson, John


Maddan, Martin
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Madel, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Maginnis, John E.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Woodnutt, Mark


Marten, Neil
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Worsley, Marcus


Mather, Carol
Rost, Peter
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Maude, Angus
Royle, Anthony
Younger, Hn. George


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Russell, Sir Ronald



Mawby, Ray
St. John-Stevas, Norman
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Scott, Nicholas
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Mr. Paul Hawkins.


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Sharples, Richard

Question put, That the Clause be added to the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 244.

Division No. 268.]
AYES
[10.16 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Biffen, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Biggs-Davison, John
Buck, Antony


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Blaker, Peter
Bullus, Sir Eric


Archer, Jeffney (Louth)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Burden, F. A.


Astor, John
Body, Richard
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Atkins, Humphrey
Boscawen, Robert
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)


Awdry, Daniel
Bossom, Sir Clive
Carlisle, Mark


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Bowden, Andrew
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert


Ba[...], Lord
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Chapman, Sydney


Batsford, Brian
Brain, Bernard
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bray, Ronald
Chichester-Clark, R.


Bell, Ronald
Brewis, John
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Clegg, Walter


Benyon, W.
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Cockeram, Eric


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bryan, Paul
Cooke, Robert




Coombs, Derek
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Cooper, A. E.
Jessel, Toby
Raison, Timothy


Cordle, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Corfield, Bt. Hn. Frederick
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Cormack, Patrick
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Costain, A. P.
Jopling, Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Critchley, Julian
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Crouch, David
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Crowder, F. P.
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Curran, Charles
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kimball, Marcus
Ridsdale, Julian


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaj.-Gen.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Dean, Paul
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Khisey, J. R.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kirk, Peter
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kitson, Timothy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rost, Peter


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Knox, David
Royle, Anthony


Dykes, Hugh
Lambton, Antony
Russell, Sir Ronald


Eden, Sir John
Lane, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Scott, Nicholas


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Scott-Hopkins, James


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sharples, Richard


Emery, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Eyre, Reginald
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Farr, John
Longden, Gilbert
Simeons, Charles


Fell, Anthony
Loveridge, John
Sinclair, Sir George


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
MacArthur, Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fidler, Michael
McCrindlc, R A.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McLaren, Martin
Soref, Harold


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McMaster, Stanley
Speed, Keith


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macmilan, Maurice (Farnham)
Spence, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Fowler, Norman
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Stainton, Keith


Fox, Marcus
Maddan, Martin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Madel, David
Steel, David


Fry, Peter
Maginnis, John E.
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Gardner, Edward
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Gibson-Watt, David
Marten, Neil
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mather, Carol
Stokes, John


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maude, Angus
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Sutcliffe, John


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mawby, Ray
Tapsell, Peter


Goodhart, Philip
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Taylor, Edward M.(C'gow,Cathcart)


Gorst, John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Gower, Raymond
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Gray, Hamish
Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Tebbit, Norman


Green, Alan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Temple, John M.


Grieve, Percy
Moate, Roger
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Molyneaux, James
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Grylls, Michael
Money, Ernie
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Gummer, Selwyn
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Thompson, sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Gurden, Harold
Monro, Hector
Tilney, John


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Montgomery, Fergus
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
More, Jasper
Trew, Peter


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan, Geramt (Denbigh)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
van Straubenzee, W, R.


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mudd, David
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Murton, Oscar
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hastings, Stephen
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Waddington, David


Havers, Michael
Neave, Airey
Wall, Patrick


Hay, John
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Walters, Dennis


Hayhoe, Barney
Nomranton, Tom
Ward, Dame Irene


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Nott, John
Warren, Kenneth


Hicks, Robert
Onslow, Cranley
Weatherill, Bernard


Higgins, Terence L.
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hiley, Joseph
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
White, Roger (Cravesend)


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Osborn, John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hill, James, (Southampton, Test)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Wiggin, Jerry


Holland, Philip
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wilkinson, John


Holt, Miss Mary
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
WOlrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hooson, Emlyn
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Hornby, Richard
Percival, Ian
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Woodnutt, Mark


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Worsley, Marcus


Howell, David (Guildford)
Pink, R. Bonner
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Pounder, Rafton
Younger, Hn. George


Hunt, John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch



Hutchison, Michael Clark
Price, David (Eastleigh)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Iremonger, T. L.
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


James, David
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Mr. Paul Hawkins.







NOES


Abse, Leo
Grant, Georgo (Morpeth)
Moyle, Roland


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn, Frederick


Allen, Scholefied
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Murray, Ronald King


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Ogden, Eric


Armstrong, Ernest
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
O'Halloran, Michael


Ashley, Jack
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
O'Malley, Brian


Ashton, Joe
Hannan, Maryhill (G'gow, Maryhill)
Oram, Bert


Atkinson, Norman
Hardy, Peter
Orbach, Maurice


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orme, Stanley


Barnes, Michael
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Oswald, Thomas


Barnett, Joel
Hattersley, Roy
Palmer, Arthur


Beaney, Alan
Healey, Rt. Hn. Den's
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Heffer, Eric S.
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Bidwell, Sydney
Horam, John
Pavitt, Laurie


Bishop, E. S.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pendry, Tom


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Huckfieid, Leslie
Pentland, Norman


Booth, Albert
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Perry, Ernest G.


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Prescott, John


Bradley, Tom
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)



Hunter, Adam
Probert, Arthur


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Rankin, John


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Janner, Greville
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Buchan, Norman
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jeger,Mrs. Lena(H'b'nSt.P'cras,S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Richard, Ivor


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cant, R. B.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy(Caenarvon)


Carmichaiel, Neil
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Roderick, CasrwynE.(Br'c'n&amp;R';dnor)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Castlie, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roper, John


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rose, Paul B.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Cohen, Stanley
Judd, Frank
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Coleman, Donald
Kaufman, Gerald
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Concannon, J. D.
Kelley, Richard
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)


Conlan, Bernard
Kerr, Russell
Sillars, James


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kinnock, Neil
Silverman, Julius


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Lambie, David
Skinner, Dennis


Crawshaw, Richard
Lamond, James
Small, William


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Latham, Arthur
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Lawson, George
Spearing, Nigel


Dalyell, Tam
Leadbitter, Ted
Spriggs, Leslie


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Stallard, A. W.


Davies, Denzil (Llamelly)
Leonard, Dick
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lester, Miss Joan
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Strang, Gavin


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Deakins, Eric
Lipton, Marcus
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Delargy, H. J.
Lomas, Kenneth
Swain, Thomas


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Loughlin, Charles
Taverne, Dick


Dempsey, James
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Doig, Peter
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Dormand, J. D.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
McBride, Neil
Tinn, James


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McCartney, Hugh
Tornney, Frank


Driberg, Tom
McElhone, Frank
Torney, Tom


Duffy, A. E. P.
McGuire, Michael
Tuck, Raphael


Dunnett, Jack
Mackenzie, Gregor
Urwin, T. W.


Eadie, Alex
Mackie, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mackintosh, John P.
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Maclennan, Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ellis, Tom
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wallace, George


English, Michael
MacPherson, Malcolm
Watkins, David


Evans, Fred
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Weitzman, David


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.)
Wellbetoved, James


Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Marks, Kenneth
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marquand, David
White, James (Glasgow, Pollock)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mason, Rt. Hn, Roy
Whitehead, Phillip


Foley, Maurice
Meacher, Michael
Whitlock, William


Foot, Michael
Mcllish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Forrester, John
Mendefson, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Millan, Bruce
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Freeson, Reginald
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Garrett, W. E.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Moiloy, William
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Ginsburg, David
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)



Golding, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Mr. Joseph Harper.

Clause accordingly added to the Bill.

New Clause 10

EFFECT OF ENTRY IN SPECIAL REGISTER

(1) In this Act, except in sections 57 and 63(l)(a),—


5
(a)'organisation of workers' includes any organisation which does not fall within paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of section 57(1) of this Act but is for the time being entered in the special register;


(b) 'federation of workers' organisations' includes any organisation which does not fall within section 57(2) of this Act but is for the time being entered in the special register as a federation of workers' organisations.


10
(2) Subject to the exceptions and modifications specified in the following provisions of this section, all the provisions of this Act shall have effect in relation to an organisation which is for the time being entered in the special register as they have effect in relation to a trade union.


(3) The following provisions of this Act shall not have effect in accordance with subsection (2) of this section, that is to say, sections 57(3), 69, 70, 74 to 76, 80, 81 and 83.


15
(4) The following provisions of this Act shall have effect in accordance with subsection (2) of this section subject to the following modifications, that is to say—



(a) in sections 72 and 73, any reference to registration as a trade union or as an employers' association shall be construed as a reference to entry in the special register;


20
(6) in section 77(2)(a), for the words 'a trade union registered under this Act as being' there shall be substituted the words 'an organisation entered in the special register as'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time Government Amendments Nos. 100 to 102 and 104 to 106, and the following Opposition Amendments: No. 209, in Clause 149, page 103, line 29, after second 'workers', insert:
'or between two or more independent organisations of workers'.
Amendment No. 210, in page 105, line 26, leave out from 'union' to end of line 27 and insert:
'means an independent organisation of workers, whether or not it is registered under this Act'.

The Solicitor-General: The new Clause is, in substance, designed to make consequential changes in the definition and implementation of the provisions of the Bill following the acceptance by the House of new Clauses 8 and 9. Subsection (1) of the new Clause says
except in sections 57 and 63(1)(a),—
(a) 'organisation of workers'

includes an organisation which is entered in the special register, and it also makes a corresponding provision for "federation of workers' organisations".
The exception of Clause 57 is necessary because it is itself defining an organisation of workers which is not specially registered and, therefore, must be distinguished from the specially registered body. The ordinary organisation of workers is defined by reference to a principal object, and the organisation with which we are here concerned is defined by reference to an activity. The exclusion of Clause 63 arises only because new Clause 8 (3)(a) provides, in a different form, the necessity for an organisation to be independent before it can qualify on this, as on the other, register.
Subsection (2) of the new Clause provides that, subject to what follows, all the obligations and rights which apply to or are available to an organisation of workers shall apply to or be available to an organisation on the special register, and the exceptions from that are dealt with in subsection (3), which provides that the provisions listed there are not to have


effect in relation to organisations on the special register.
The provisions listed are, first, Clause 57(3), which is the definition provision which the House was considering last; Clause 69, which is the provision dealing with certificates of registration—they are separately provided for in relation to organisations on the special register by new Clause 9—and Clause 70, which is not applied to specially registered organisations. The last provision gives corporate status to an organisation of workers which is not necessary for those bodies on the special register because they already have it either as companies or as chartered bodies.
10.30 p.m.
Clauses 74 to 76 are excluded in relation to the bodies on the special register. They are the Clauses which provide for registration on the provisional register, and there is no question of that being available for this kind of body because it is not already registered.
Clauses 80, 81 and 83 are those which deal with the obligation of an ordinary workers' organisation to maintain accounts, to have them audited, to submit an annual return and report, to preserve a register of members, to submit to control of its superannuation funds, and to be subject to winding-up. Those are not applied to the organisation on the special register, not because it is not intended that the specially registered organisation should be under the same obligations but because the obligations dealt with in those Clauses are imposed upon companies and chartered bodies by their own systems of control under the Companies Act or their charters.
Thus, the upshot of all this is that the organisation on the special register is subject to the same obligations and has the same rights as the ordinary workers' organisation.
Subsection (4) makes some variation in the terms of Clauses 72, 73 and 77 but does not affect the way in which they operate in relation to bodies on the special register. The effect of subsection (4) is to make plain that a body on the special register is subject to the same prospect of having its registration cancelled or of having complaints by members against it investigated by the

Registrar. The provisions in Clauses 72, 73 and 77 which make those matters available in respect of the ordinary workers' organisation will apply in relation to the specially registered organisation as well. So there is nothing of substance or significance in this Clause of which the House need take particular note.
The consequential and related Government Amendments which we are considering at the same time are, with one exception, merely altering references in the definition Clauses. The one exception is Amendment No. 106, which extends the meaning of "worker" in Clausse 149, the general definition Clause.
The definition of "worker" is basically intended to cover someone working under a contract of employment or someone working under a contract for work or services which he is under an obligation to perform personally. That definition as it stands would not include the four categories of person employed in the National Health Service, referred to in Amendment No. 106, providing general medical services, pharmaceutical services, general dental services or general ophthalmic services under the relevant provisions of the National Health Service Act and the corresponding Scottish Act.
Such people are in contract with the executive council under which they undertake to provide services for patients. It is a triangular relationship, which is mysterious in some ways, and is not possible to identify save by specifically listing them in this way.
The intention is that "worker" includes that kind of general medical, general dental, pharmaceutical or ophthalmic practitioner, and, accordingly, a workers' organisation includes one which comprises people of that kind. If this were not part of the definition we should have the odd conclusion that hospital doctors on contracts of service with a hospital board or management committee were on a contract of employment and would be covered as "workers" but general medical practitioners and others on a contract with the executive council which is somewhat special in its nature might not qualify as "workers". That is the one linked Amendment which I felt I should explain.

Mr. Harold Walker: It is a matter of regret to me that the Solicitor-General did not also refer to the other Amendments selected for debate. It is primarily to them that I want to direct my remarks.
We are inevitably and logically opposed to the proposed Clause. That naturally follows from our opposition to the linked Clauses 8 and 9. Because it is an opposition that has already found its expression, I turn immediately to our Amendments.
Amendment No. 210 once again calls into question the whole principle of registration as conceived and spelled out by the Government, whilst Amendment No. 209 seeks to retain the protection that has been afforded for over 60 years by the Trades Disputes Act, 1906 to disputes between workmen and workmen.
There have repeatedly today been extraordinary charges by the Government that we are wasting the time of the House by debating the proposed new Clauses. The complaint should be from this side that under the restrictions of the guillotine more than 100 Clauses have gone without debate, particularly, in this context, Clause 149, containing the definitions, which is of such crucial importance to the Bill and hence to the whole industrial relations system and atmosphere, which is threatened by radical and fundamental change. The definition of "industrial dispute" that we now find in Clause 149 represents a considerable narrowing of what it has been for at least 60-odd years.
When we started our debates there were frequent references to the Royal Commission Report as a justification for what the Government are putting before the House. This claim has worn thin, and we have heard less and less of it as the days and weeks have gone by. By narrowing the definition of "trade dispute" as they have done, the Government are not only inconsistent with but in outright defiance of the Royal Commission, which examined this point very carefully. We have heard the Government once or twice rest on a minority of the Royal Commission. It is true that there was a minority in favour of such a change in the law as is here proposed by the Government, but it was a minority of three out of 12, and they considered the matter in an entirely different context.
In paragraph 817 the Commission summarised its assessment by saying:
We do not think that this definition"—
the existing definition—
needs any substantial alteration.
But, in spite of that, the Government have gone ahead and introduced this fundamental change in the definition of "trade dispute". We are particularly concerned to have the Amendment debated because of the class of dispute which is likely to grow because of the Bill and its consequences.
The creation of the special register and the introduction of the agency shop and the sole bargaining provisions are likely to encourage inter-union strife. But it is precisely in these situations that the unions will be stripped of protections which they have had for so long. Furthermore, it is not always easy to determine whether a dispute is inter-union or between union and employer. I am thinking particularly of the Girling dispute, which was particularly damaging during the period when was a junior Minister at the Department. It was extremely difficult to disentangle the issues, which had a powerful element of inter-union strife at their origin. The strike which subsequently occurred did not, however, arise from differences between unions but because of the action of the employer.
But, because of the changes made by the Bill in the definitions, employers and others might persuasively argue that there is an inter-union dispute because, by doing so, they will have greater scope for legal action and for redress in the courts for damages sustained as a consequence of a strike—damages that would have been ruled out prior to the Bill and, indeed, would be ruled out under the Bill if it was held that it was an industrial dispute and that the parties were acting in accordance with the provisions of the Bill.
Previously, the legal distinction between the two kinds of dispute—the one between employer and workers and the other between workmen and workmen—has not been of great consequence in the kind of situation I have just described. Now it is being given great consequence by the Bill. The distinction will be a matter of considerable importance not only for employers but for trade unionists—and, indeed, under Clause 87, for example, it


will be of considerable importance to extraneous parties also.
It may well be that the Government say, "It will be a good thing if the consequence of this change is to introduce a new and powerful deterrent to inter-union conflict." But they are opening the door to interminable legal wranglings which can do nothing but harm to our industrial relations, exacerbate the difficulties we all know exist and add severely to the onerous restrictions the Government are already imposing on trade unions and organisations of workers. It is clearly diminishing the rights and freedoms which the Government repeatedly deny they are attacking.
The Government insist that the Bill is not designed to diminish the rights and freedoms of workers and their organisations, but we have pointed out time and again that they are doing precisely the opposite. Here, they are putting still more shackles on the freedom of trade unions to carry out what have been their legitimate practices, the proper exercise of their power and the pursuit of their functions throughout their history.

Mr. Gower: The hon. Gentleman referred to the definition of an industrial trade dispute. Why does he attach so much weight to that since when he was a junior Minister he and his Government were in favour of amending the definition of a dispute? In "In Place of Strife" the last Government advocated the change.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Walker: To exclude this class of dispute from the definition of "trade dispute"? The hon. Gentleman has it wrong.

Mr. Gower: They were not satisfied with their own definition.

Mr. Walker: We never considered excluding that class of dispute from the long-standing definition of a trade dispute which is embodied in the 1906 Act—that is, a
trade dispute' means any dispute between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen".
It is the second part which the Government have deleted from the definition of "trade dispute" with some very serious consequences. For example, the protec-

tion against torts which is provided by Clause 119 of the Bill will not extend to inter-union disputes.
I turn to Amendment No. 210. By proposing that "a trade union" means
an independent organisation of workers, whether or not it is registered under this Act
we are again seeking to restore the position of the different castes of trade unionists or workers in industry to what it was before this iniquitous Bill was presented. I do not want to reiterate the arguments adduced about the three castes, if the Government take exception to references to "classes"—the superieur, the ordinaire and the inferieur. But this is only part of our objection to the principle of registration as conceived by the Government.
We have made it clear that this is not registration as such. It is registration in the detailed way presented by the Government and with all the awful consequences of non-registration to which we take exception. As the Government point out, not only is there provision in the law as it stands for registration; there was provision in the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). But neither the existing law nor my right hon. Friend's Bill had the consequences of this Bill, which rests on a divided decision of the Donovan Commission.
I am glad that we have had the opportunity of at least touching on the tip of this enormous iceberg, the definition in Clause 149, which so radically transforms our industrial relations system. Because the new Clause involves a principle which we have attacked, I shall eventually seek the support of my hon. Friends in the Lobby to express our opposition to it.

Mr. Orme: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) has said. I wish to deal with the Opposition Amendments to Clause 149.
It is very important that, as the Clause was not discussed at all and deals with the question of interpretation, the Solicitor-General should answer the points made and not dismiss our Amendments in such cavalier manner.

The Solicitor-General: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want to do me an injustice. It seemed to me to be sense,


since there were Opposition Amendments, for me to confine myself to moving the Government new Clause, hear what he and his hon. Friends had to say and then, with the leave of the House, reply. I was not being cavalier. I hope, after that modest explanation, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw.

Mr. Orme: I withdraw that, and accept the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Paragraph 816 of the Donovan Report gives a definition of a trade dispute. Section 3 of the 1875 Act and Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the 1906 Act have been narrowed down by the definition of the Bill. The Donovan Report speaks of a trade dispute between employees and workmen or between workmen and workmen, and Amendment No. 209 inserts in Clause 149 the words:
or between two or more independent organisations of workers.
This narrowing down of the definition of a trade dispute is a serious matter. Those of us who have worked for a long time to reduce the number of disputes between organisations of workers and trade unions fear that the proliferation of organisations which may come about under the Bill will lead to a larger number of disputes in the future. This is a most serious point which I hope the Solicitor-General will answer.
Amendment No. 210 deals with the definition of a trade union in Clause 149, which is:
'trade union' has the meaning assigned to it by section 57(3) of this Act.
Clause 57(3) reads:
In this Act 'trade union' means an organisation of workers which is for the time being registered under this Act.
Again, this is an extreme narrowing down which excludes any organisation not registered under the Bill. We know the arguments of the trade union movement against registration, and a non-registered union would be excluded from the definition.
I have been backwards and forwards through the Bill and the Amendments, from Clause 149 back to Clause 57(3). This shows the legal complexities of the Bill and the difficulty of putting forward one's views in a logical way. Those of us who are in the Chamber at the

moment could be classed as the "in" people on the Bill. God knows what will happen when it reaches the shop floor. If we have difficulty comprehending this sort of thing and following these definitions, we can see the difficulties which will arise. The Solicitor-General owes it to the House to explain why these definitions have been narrowed. If he is not prepared to accept the Opposition Amendments, he should say why that is so. I hope he will understand that in these Amendments we are returning to fundamental points dealing with the definition of a trade dispute and of a trade union. I can think of nothing more important.

Mr. Murray: In touching on Clause 149, we are touching the tip of an iceberg. One Government and one Opposition Amendment bear upon the definition of "worker". I can understand that Government Amendment No. 106 is necessary to extend the rather odd definition of "worker" in Clause 149 to include various medical workers. In contrast, Opposition Amendment No. 210 focuses on the definition of "trade union". I agree with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme).
I want to point to an oddity that might arise under the definition of "worker". Have the Government considered whether this definition may or may not include, for example, a managing director? If it does, the interesting oddity arises that it may include ordinary directors also. If it includes ordinary directors, we have the interesting possibility that the Institute of Directors might be registered as a trade union or as one of the special bodies which get in through the special register. If it can do that, it might also register as employers' organisation. I may be wrong and the Solicitor-General may correct me on this, but as far as I can see, there is nothing expressly in the Bill to prevent a body from being both an organisation of employers registered under the Bill and an organisation of workers registered under the Bill. This may be intended to bring closely together the amity between the two sides of industry.

Mr. Charles Curran: First, I would say how much I agree with the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) in drawing attention to the importance of the change in the definition.


We are abandoning the definition of a trade dispute which dates from 1906, though I do not agree with the hon. Member for Doncaster or the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) in supposing that because this change is fundamental, which it is, it should be ruled out.
If we go back to the circumstances in which the 1906 Act was passed, we find that there was considerable misgiving in the Cabinet at that time, especially in the minds of the Law Officers, about the definition of a trade dispute. Several members of the Cabinet believed that the definition was far too wide. There was considerable dispute in the Cabinet about the final terms of the Trade Disputes Bill.
That Bill began in a very narrow form. It had to be widened under pressure from the trade unions and from the new Labour Party which had just entered the House of Commons.
I do not wish to be tediously historical about this, but if one goes back to the 1906 discussions in the House of Commons and outside it, it is easy to see that there was widespread misgiving then about the definition of a trade dispute. That was over 60 years ago. It is not necessarily an act of blasphemy for the Government to say, as they do, that the definition needs revision. We have had more than 60 years' experience of it.
11.0 p.m.
Although I agree that this is a fundamental change, I do not agree that because it is a fundamental change it should, therefore, not be made. I draw attention to one aspect of this fundamental change to which nobody on the other side has referred. Clause 149 narrowly defines the meaning of the new phrase "industrial dispute". These words are much narrower in scope than the phrase "trade dispute" which they supersede. One difference which needs to to be stressed is that "industrial dispute"
means a dispute…where the dispute relates wholly or mainly to any one or more of the following…
I take it that the Opposition grasps that one consequence of this is that it would exclude anything in the nature of political strikes. Perhaps some of the theologians on the other side might argue that some political strikes are trade disputes; but once the Bill becomes law it

will not be possible to argue that a political strike can become an industrial dispute.
I welcome this definition. I recognise that it is fundamental, and I applaud the Government for introducing it, because once this definition is on the Statute Book it will put beyond argument the proposition that it is not lawful for a trade union to engage in the use of industrial action for political purposes.

Mr. Murray: It has never been suggested from this side of the House that a political strike is any form of industrial dispute. It has been pointed out time and again in the course of our discussions on the Bill that if workers down tools and march out, whatever their motives, that will not be an unfair industrial practice.

Mr. Curran: I am not saying that the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested it. I say that a vague and imprecise impression has arisen that somehow or other it is legitimate for a trade union to use industrial power for the purpose of registering a political objective. I recognise that this change is fundamental and also that it is highly necessary in the public interest.

Mr. Harold Walker: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that the right to do something which may be undesirable is an essential part of any free society? Once we start to suppress something because some of us consider it to be undesirable, we are on the way to the corporate State. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that this new definition will render unlawful a political strike and he welcomes that, I hope that not merely the trade union movement but also those eternal vigilant watchdogs of our freedoms and liberties—the Press—will take note of what he is saying.

Mr. Curran: I agree with the hon. Gentleman but the word "undesirable" which he uses is rather a question-begging word. It depends on how it is measured, how it is defined, and what yardstick is used. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. It is true that one of the great platitudes which are repeated perhaps too often in this place is that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, but this vigilance can be exercised in ways other than the use of industrial action.

Mr. Loughlin: I have been interested in the contribution of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran). I am sick and tired of people like the hon. Gentleman lecturing the trade unions about the use of their power for political purposes. Since when have trade employers not used every possible power for political purposes?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: We hear about undemocratic unions, but never a word about the undemocratic House of Lords. Their Lordships also have a lot of power, but were never elected to any position.

Mr. Loughlin: I take the point, but I was dealing with the two sides of industry. Unions are occasionally pushed into what can be described as industrial action for political ends. Before the General Election, an enormous number of employers poured money into the coffers of the Tory Party. Without reference to shareholders, they used their industrial power for political ends. So let us not be hypocritical. Even after this definition becomes law, there will still be industrial action for political ends.

Mr. Curran: The hon. Gentleman is arguing by means of a false analogy. He is right. I do not know that employers and capitalists "poured" money into the Tory Party, but at least they contributed to it. But the unions contributed to the Labour Party. They are free to do so as the law stands, but if it is right for one lot of people to contribute to one party, why is it not right for another lot to contribute to another party? Is there not a basic difference between giving money to a party and calling a strike?

Mr. Loughlin: I do not know that there is when it comes to defeating the Government of the day. Not only did employers pour money into the election fund: they also supported a campaign through a number of organisations against the Labour Government—a completely political campaign for their own purposes. So let us not be hypocritical.
I do not mind fighting the hon. Member for Uxbridge on political issues, although I am getting too old to fight and too fat to run. I would not mind if the barricades were set up—I suppose I would be on the right side—but at least we should be honest. This is a political battle. The Tory Party are designing a

Bill for the sole purpose of shackling the trade unions, but they will not get away with it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish.") Hon. Gentlemen know in their hearts that this is the primary purpose of the Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a very difficult Clause for me to understand. Can the hon. Gentleman explain to me to which subsection his remarks relate?

Mr. Loughlin: Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are Amendments as well as the Clause, and I am discussing Clause 149, which deals with definitions, and Amendments Nos. 209 and 210. I appreciate your point, for one very good reason, and it underlines virtually every contribution that I have made in Committee and on Report: it is extremely difficult for hon. Members who are not members of the learned profession to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) belongs to understand how to relate our arguments to certain specified Clauses and Amendments.
In any event, I had no intention of intervening until I was surprised once again to hear a contribution from the benches opposite suggesting that the only people who use industrial strength for political ends are the trade unions.

The Solicitor-General: I was heartened to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) said about there being nothing positively blasphemous in daring to suggest that some of the provisions in the ancient legislation could be looked at again. I was also interested in his point and the comments of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) about the extent to which the definition of "industrial dispute" or "trade dispute" should cover a strike for political purposes.
The position is clear probably on the old definition, and certainly it is on this one, that in order to qualify as an industrial dispute or a trade dispute, the dispute has to be connected with the terms or conditions of employment of people. If it is unconnected with them and connected with what cannot be defined as an industrial relations issue but is a purely political one, the Bill is not designed to provide for it. It is a form of industrial action undertaken in circumstances with which the ordinary courts


would have to deal in the future, as they have in the past. That is made clear.
I do not go along with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West that there is some kind of differential treatment. He is right that employers, like many others, contribute funds for political purposes, just as trade unions do. It is no part of the Bill to curtail that kind of activity within the ordinary framework of the law.
We are saying that the organisation of industrial action, be it by an employer, an employers' association or a trade union, is not an industrial dispute if it is organised in the pursuit of a political objective. That is the same whether organised by an employer, an employers' association or a trade union. It has nothing to do with industrial relations, and there is nothing discriminatory in either sense on that.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: By the same token, will the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if workers merely stay away from work and do not tell anyone why or invent all sort of reasons, they will not come within the scope of the Bill at all?

11.15 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: That is a different question and depends upon which part of the Bill the hon. Gentleman is discussing. In the context of what we are discussing now, I am making it clear that politically organised industrial action of either side is outside the scope of the Bill and is a matter for the ordinary courts.
The hon. and learned Member for Leith (Mr. Murray) raised a short series or points—a briefer catechism than I normally expect to hear from him—about the inter-relationship of registration of a workers' organisation under Clause 57 and of an employers' organisation under Clause 58. It depends whether the organisation is wholly or mainly of one kind of person or another. I suspect that the directors who belong to the Institute of Directors are not themselves employers but are more probably employees of companies and, therefore, workers, and that they would, therefore, qualify as workers.
I also suspect that the Institute of Directors is not concerned as such with the regulation of relations between

workers and employees. But if it were to undertake trade union activities on behalf of directors vis-à-vis companies which employ them, I do not know why the hon. and learned Gentleman should complain that trade unionism had reached so high a level of white-collarism. I gather that he does not complain and that we are at one. In any event, it would be a matter for analysis whenever the question arose.
The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) spoke principally on the Amendment concerning the definition of an industrial dispute. The position is that the existing definition, as Donovan made clear, is not entirely beyond dispute. The reference to the Trinidad case and Stratford v. Lindley makes it clear that it is not even now apparent whether a recognition conflict is within the provisions of the 1906 Act definition. But if it is plain, as Donovan opines without being quite certain, that a recognition dispute is within the old definition, it follows that an inter-union dispute of any kind, even in the situation in which the employer is entirely neutral, would attract the provisions of the Bill and qualify as an industrial dispute. On that, the Donovan minority said—in the passage which the hon. Member quoted—that it was not right, where the employers were wholly uninvolved, where the dispute was not of the employers' making, that that kind of dispute should qualify for definition as an industrial dispute.
The intention of the definition is that any dispute which involves a confrontation or argument between work people or their organisation and an employer or employers is covered by the definition of industrial dispute, but not so long as it remains in the area not involving the employer at all. If the House looks at the definition of "industrial dispute" on page 103—I have an uncanny feeling of having said all this before, although it may be that I misremember it—it will find that it
means a dispute…relating wholly or mainly
to all the provisions set out, and the last is paragraph (d):
a procedure agreement or any matter to which in accordance with this section a procedure agreement can relate".
That takes one to the next stage, showing the large number of matters to which


a procedure agreement can relate. If a dispute is about any of those—including, for example, negotiating rights, dismissal or discipline, involving the employer in the confrontation or dispute—it qualifies as an industrial dispute. The only effective change is that a dispute which remains between the employees' organisations and does not in any case involve the employer would not, as such, qualify within the definition.

Mr. Orme: Does not the Solicitor-General recognise that that is a major change from the 1875 Act?

The Solicitor-General: It is not a major change but a significant change and along the lines that my hon Friend mentioned—that in order to qualify as an industrial dispute within the provisions of the Bill the dispute has to reach a point at which the union or unions or workpeople have at least gone to the employer and said, "This is what we want you to do—involve you in the argument which we have been conducting for some time." At that point it qualifies as an industrial dispute.
The hon. Member for Doncaster again raised the question of registration and argued for the umpteenth time that the privileges and obligations of a trade union should extend even to the unregistered body. We do not want to go back over that ground, but I want to underline one point that the hon. Member made. He said that he was not opposed to registration, and that that was why there were provisions in his right hon. Friend's Bill for registration. That is an interesting revelation—and not altogether a Freudian one—because, although the Bill published by the right hon. Lady in May of last year did not contain provision for registration, we know that at least one or two earlier Bills were in preparation during the time that the hon. Member was at the Department of Employment and Producivity, and it must be that he was harking back in his memory to the provisions for registration contained in one of those Bills, with which the right hon. Lady was so familiar but which the country was never to see—

Mr. Harold Walker: I must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to accept my word that I was intending to refer to the provisions in the White Paper.

The Solicitor-General: That is an equally interesting point, because it makes clear that the hon. Member, at least, was accepting the concept of registration. The interesting question is whether that proposal in his right hon. Friend's White Paper—to which he has reverted with affection—said that unions should register with a new Registrar of trade unions and that refusal would lay a union open to a financial penalty imposed by the Industrial Board. If we have that point being commended, even at this late stage, we have more in common than we had at one time thought—

Mr. Walker: The hon. and learned Gentleman must not misrepresent me. What I said, and what I have not deviated from in all our discussions, is that the principle of registration was not at issue; it exists in the law at present, and many trade unions are registered. What we are opposed to is registration in detailed form, with the requirements laid down in the Bill and the consequence that it provides for failing to do so.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) upholds registration on a voluntary basis. The hon. Member for Doncaster's recent explanation of his earlier reference to acceptance of the principle of registration by his saying that he meant the principle as enunciated in the White Paper raises a different concept. Will he make it clear whether he supports the idea of compulsory registration as set out in the White Paper to which he referred? If so, was that compulsion to be achieved by the removal of the privileges contained in Section 3 of the 1906 Act or, as suggested in the White Paper to which the hon. Member referred, by the imposition of financial penalties?
As I understood him, the hon. Gentleman distinguished his position from that of being in favour of voluntary registration by asserting that his reference to registration in his right hon. Friend's Bill implied references to registration as advocated in the White Paper. If that is what he still has in mind and still hankers after—and still knows in his heart to be right—it is a useful concession, because we know that certain hon. Members opposite are prepared to recognise that registration supported by sanctions has an important part to play in this kind of legislation, as was enunciated by the hon. Member when


he was responsible for legislation in the Department.

Mr. Walker: The hon. and learned Gentleman must not keep taking refuge in putting to the House arguments arising from a Measure that is not before it. He must not seek refuge for the inadequacies of his argument in support of this Measure by referring to something that is now history and has not been before the House. It proves the weakness and inadequacy of his case that he should keep running down that bolthole.

The Solicitor-General: I hope that the House will acknowledge that I did not easily succumb to temptation on this occasion. It was because the hon. Gentleman himself referred to his acceptance of the idea of registration that I spoke as I did. He referred to his right hon. Friend's Bill and then to "In Place of Strife," and I thought I was entitled to say that we on this side were supported even on his current recollections of the strength of the arguments he once advanced to the country and in the House.

Mr. Heller: For a moment in the debate I thought I was back in church, because there was a great deal of talk about the theologians on this side, and earlier we heard of canonisation, the catechism, and so on. The fact is that we are in the House of Commons and discussing the Industrial Relations Bill.
In particular, the right hon. Gentleman developed the concept that in, for example, demarcation disputes the employer was supposedly neutral. I was in two industries in which demarcation disputes took place fairly regularly. We have now largely eliminated them by the action of the trade unions themselves. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that in most of those disputes the employer was never neutral. In most cases he was decidedly on the side of one or other of the unions involved in discussion about the type of new material to be used, especially if the rate of pay and the conditions in one union were higher or better than those in another.
So it seems to me, the Government accept the minority view in Donovan on any occasion when it supports their point of view. When it is the majority view, on most occasions they totally ignore it. One would not imagine that the Commis-

sion had ever published a Report except on those few occasions when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite find that it falls in line with their own concept as published in "Fair Deal at Work" and now in the Bill.
Paragraph 820 of the Donovan Report states:
The following members of the Commission, namely Lord Robens, Sir George Pollock and Mr. John Thomson, are of the opinion that demarcation disputes between trade unions in which the employer is neutral (that is, is indifferent as to which of the contending parties' members should do the particular job) should be excluded from the statutory definition of trade dispute, and that this should be achieved by deleting the words 'or between workmen and workmen'.
This is precisely what the Government have done:
They point out that the dispute they have in mind is not of the employer's making, that he can do nothing to resolve it and that in these circumstances it is unjust that he should be debarred from exercising legal remedies which might otherwise be open to him. The remaining members of the Royal Commission consider that it would be difficult to distinguish and define a demarcation dispute in which an employer was completely neutral and that as productvity bargaining spreads employers are likely to become more involved in defining the duties of particular workers. Demarcation disputes moreover are not nearly so costly in terms of working days lost as they used to be, and the problem is not so pressing as to justify altering the definition of a trade dispute in the way proposed.
11.30 p.m.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) suggested that my hon. Friends were blaspheming in wanting to change the definition. But the majority of the Donovan Commission said the same thing.
The Commission also pointed out that with the complexity of modern industry, the development of new materials meant that more demarcation disputes were likely. These disputes will have to be resolved either within the trade union movement or, until certain matters are clearly defined, by the employers. There could, therefore, be a dispute concerning wages and conditions. These are some of the realities of industrial life which hon. Gentlemen opposite do not understand.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge then pointed out that political strikes would not be affected by the Bill. But what is a political strike? Was the threat by


17,000 of the 22,000 doctors in the National Health Service to resign a political or industrial matter? The whole service would have come to a halt had their resignations taken effect, but was it a political act, because they were bringing pressure on the Government, or an industrial act, because they were concerned with wages and conditions?
The same could be said of the one-day dispute the other day. Were those workers concerned only with a political matter or with their future wages and conditions of employment? It is frequently impossible to distinguish between a political and an industrial act.

Mr. Bidwell: The other day some London dockers struck for one day and marched here to protect and support the freedom of speech of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) who they thought was being thrown out of Parliament. That was a clear case of an undesirable political strike.

Mr. Heffer: To be fair to hon. Gentlemen opposite, I do not think many of them applauded that action. Like my hon. Friend and me, many of them thought it was an undesirable act. But did those workers take that action merely because they were against coloured immigrants or because they felt that their future employment in the Port of London was threatened? That raises the question of their employment and conditions of work, and I am certain that many of those workers were far more concerned about their future employment prospects than they were about the question of coloured immigration. However, we are not discussing that issue on these Clauses, although it is an interesting reference.
This is the first real opportunity we have had to discuss Clause 149, the definition Clause. The Government have put down a series of Amendments which change certain definitions, and we thought it right to discuss certain definitions which we consider should be changed. I take, first, the definition of a trade union.
By our Amendment, we say that "trade union" means an independent organisation of workers whether registered or not. We do not accept the Government's definition, that a trade union must be

registered under the Bill. This point has practical application. It is extremely probable that the overwhelming majority of trade unions affiliated to the T.U.C. will not register under the Bill. The fact that they do not register does not mean that they cease to be trade unions. They will carry out trade union functions, but they will be under a definite liability because they have failed to register.

Mr. Dudley Smith: indicated assent.

Mr. Heffer: The Under-Secretary of State nods to that. So when the Trades Union Congress says that one will have to have a licence to operate as a trade union, it is absolutely right. That is what the T.U.C. has said all along, and the hon. Gentleman accepts that.

Mrs. Peggy Fenner: What did the T.U.C. say about the comment on page 32 of "In Place of Strife", that refusal to register
will lay a trade union open to a financial penalty by the Industrial Board"?
Further, since the hon. Gentleman commented upon the Government's choice of parts of Donovan, will he comment on the other sentence in that paragraph which says that,
The Royal Commission's alternative sanction was that the protection of section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act 1906 should be confined to registered unions",
and the fact that his Government did not accept that?

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Lady asks me what the T.U.C. said about certain parts of "In Place of Strife". I am sure that I do not want to repeat in the Chamber some of the things it said about "In Place of Strife". But "In Place of Strife" was a White Paper, which was debated and discussed. On the basis of the discussions which took place, and after proper consultation "In Place of Strife" was withdrawn and a Bill was brought before the House, which unfortunately we never had the chance to discuss or amend because the June election came in the meantime. But such a Bill would have been discussed and, in my view, amended when it went through the House.
Whenever they get into difficulty, whenever they are unable to answer a point, or whenever they find themselves with nothing else to fall back on, hon Members


opposite always quote "In Place of Strife". That is all they ever do. They have no arguments of their own, so they come back to this point.
I have not said much about the proposed Clause, because we pretty well exhausted the whole of the discussion on the two previous Clauses. We have used this opportunity to discuss at least some parts of Clause 149, which we would not otherwise have had the opportunity to discuss because of the operation of the guillotine.
I ask my hon. Friends to reject the proposed Clause and vote for our Amendment.

Mr. A. E. Cooper: We have had enough whining from the right hon. Lady and her supporters about the operation of the guillotine. I would point out to hon. Members opposite that in the Committee stage—I am not talking about the midnight fourth-form frolics—they have had no fewer than 64 Divisions—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. None of that arises on the Clause.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 245.

Division No. 269.]
AYES
[11.41 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Crouch, David
Hawkins, Paul


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Crowder, F. P.
Hayhoe, Barney


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Outran, Charles
Heseltine, Michael


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hicks, Robert


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaj.-Gen.
Higgins, Terence L.


Aston, John
Dean, Paul
Hiley, Joseph


Atkins, Humphrey
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Awdry, Daniel
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Holland, Philip


Balniel, Lord
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Holt, Miss Mary


Batsford, Brian
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hooson, Emlyn


Beamish, Col Sir Tufton
Dykes, Hugh
Hornby, Richard


Bell, Ronald
Eden, Sir John
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Benyon, W.
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Emery, Peter
Hunt, John


Biffen, John
Eyre, Reginald
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Biggs-Davison, John
Farr, John
Iremonger, T. L.


Blaker, Peter
Fell, Anthony
James, David


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Body, Richard
Fidler, Michael
Jessel, Toby


Boscawen, Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Bossom, Sir Clive




Bowden, Andrew
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Fletcher-Cookc, Charles
Jopling, Michael


Braine, Bernard
Fookes, Miss Janet
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Bray, Ronald
Fortescue, Tim
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Brewis, John
Foster, Sir John
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fowler, Norman
Kershaw, Anthony


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fox, Marcus
Kimball, Marcus


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Bryan, Paul
Fry, Peter
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Gardner, Edward
Kinsey, J. R.


Buck, Antony
Gibson-Watt, David
Kirk, Peter


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kitson, Timothy


Burden, F. A.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Knox, David


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nalm)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Lambton, Antony


Carlisle, Mark
Goodhart, Philip
Lane, David


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Goodhew, Victor
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Channon, Paul
Gorst, John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Chapman, Sydney
Gower, Raymond
Le Marchant, Spencer


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gray, Hamish
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Green, Alan
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Grieve, Percy
Longden, Gilbert


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Loveridge, John


Clegg, Walter
Grylls, Michael
MacArthur, Ian


Cockeram, Eric
Cummer, Selwyn
McCrindle, R. A.


Cooke, Robert
Curden, Harold
McLaren, Martin


Coombs, Derek
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McMaster, Stanley


Cooper, A. E.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Cordle, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hannam, John (Exeter)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Cormack, Patrick
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maddan, Martin


Costain, A. P.
Hastings, Stephen
Madel, David


Critchley, Julian
Havers, Michael
Maginnis, John E.




Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Pounder, Ration
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Marten, Neil
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Sutcliffe, John


Mather, Carol
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tapsell, Peter


Maude, Angus
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Mawby, Ray
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Maxwell-Nyslop, R. J.
Raison, Timothy
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Tebbit, Norman


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Temple, John M.


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Miscampbell, Norman
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Mitchell,Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Moate, Roger
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Molyneaux, James
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Tilney, John


Money, Ernie
Ridsdale, Julian
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Trew, Peter


Monro, Hector
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Montgomery, Fergus
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Turton, Rt. Hn, R. H.


More, Jasper
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
van Straubenzee, W R.


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)



Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Rost, Peter
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard



Royle Anthony



Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Russell, Sir Ronald
Vickers, Dame Joan


Mudd, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Waddington, David


Murton, Oscar
Scott, Nicholas
Wall, Patrick


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Scott-Hopkins, James
Walters, Dennis


Neave, Airey
Sharpies, Richard
Ward, Dame Irene


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Warren, Kenneth


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Normanton, Tom
Simeons, Charles
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Nott, John
Sinclair, Sir George
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Onslow, Cranley
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wiggin, Jerry


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Smith, Dudley (W'wick&amp;L'mington)
Wilkinson, John


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Soref, Harold
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Osborn, John
Spence, John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Sproat, Iain
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stainton, Keith
Woodnutt, Mark


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Worsley, Marcus


Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Steel, David



Percival, Ian
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Younger, Hn. George



Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Stokes, John
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Pink, R. Bonner

Mr. Keith Speed.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Garrett, W. E.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Crawshaw, Richard
Gilbert, Dr. John


Allen, Scholefield
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Ginsburg, David


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Golding, John


Ashton, Joe
Dalyell, Tarn
Cordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Atkinson, Norman
Davidson, Arthur
Gourlay, Harry


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Barnes, Michael
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Barnett, Joel
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Beaney, Alan
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Deakins, Eric
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bidwell, Sydney
Delargy, H. J.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Bishop, E. S.
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hamling, William


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dempsey, James
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Doig, Peter
Hardy, Peter


Booth, Albert
Dormand, J. D.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hart, Rt, Hn. Judith


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hattersley, Roy


Bradley, Tom
Driberg, Tom
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tync,W.)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dunnett, Jack
Horam, John


Buchan, Norman
Eadie, Alex
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Huckfield, Leslie


Camphell, L. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Ellis, Tom
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cladwyn (Anglesey)


Cant, R. B.
English, Michael
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Carmichael, Neil
Evans, Fred
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Hunter, Adam


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Janner, Greville


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Cohen, Stanley
Foley, Maurice
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)


Coleman, Donald
Foot, Michael
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Concannon, J. D.
Forrester, John
John, Brynmor


Conlan, Bernard
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Freeson, Reginald
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)







Johnson Walter (Derby, S.)
Millan, Bruce
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Sillars, James


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Silverman, Julius


Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W,Ham,S.)
Molloy, William
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Small, William


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Judd, Frank
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Spearing, Nigel


Kaufman, Gerald
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Spriggs, Leslie


Kelley, Richard
Moyle, Roland
Stallard, A. W.


Kerr, Russell
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Kinnock, Neil
Murray, Ronald King
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Lambie, David
Ogden, Eric
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Lamond, James
O'Halloran, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Latham, Arthur
O'Malley, Brian
Strauss, Rt. Hn. C. R.


Lawson, George
Oram, Bert
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Leadbitter, Ted
Orbach, Maurice
Swain, Thomas


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Orme, Stanley
Taverne, Dick


Leonard, Dick
Oswald, Thomas
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff, W)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Palmer, Arthur
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Tinn, James


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pavitt, Laurie
Tomney, Frank


Lipton, Marcus
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Torney, Tom


Lomas, Kenneth
Pendry, Tom
Tuck, Raphael


Loughlin, Charles
Pentland, Norman
Urwin, T. W.


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Perry, Ernest G.
Wainwright, Edwin


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Malum, Dr. J. Dickson
Prescott, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


McBride, Neil
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wallace, George


McCartney, Hugh
Probert, Arthur
Watkins, David


McElhone, Frank
Rankin, John
Weitzman, David


McGuire, Michael
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Wellbeloved, James


Mackenzie, Gregor
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mackie, John
Rhodes, Geoffrey
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Mackintosh, John P.
Richard, Ivor
Whitehead, Phillip


Maclennan, Robert
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Whitlock, William


McNamara, J. Kevin
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


MacPherson, Malcolm
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamlton)


Marks, Kenneth
Roper, John
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Marquand, David
Rose, Paul B.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)



Meacher, Michael
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Mr. Joseph Harper and Mr. Ernest Armstrong.


Mendelson, John
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

Clause accordingly read a Second time.

Mr. Eadie: I beg to move Amendment (ttttt) to the proposed Clause, in line 12, after '57(3)', insert '64'.
This is a classic example of how the guillotine operates. As we would say in the coalfield, I have one or two shots I would like to fire but I shall not have much time to fire them.
Judging by the noise of hon. Members opposite, to them the Amendment does not have much importance; but it has great importance. We are talking to some extent about democracy and people's rights. Once in a debate in the House the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) said that there was a danger that there would not be many moderates left. When I look at some sections of the Press, I wonder whether it is the Government's intention that that prophecy should come true. I should have thought that the moderate victory, as it was called, at the Croydon conference would have been hailed with

satisfaction, but apparently that is not so. Some sections of the Tory Press—and particularly one right hon. Gentleman opposite—do not seem to be satisfied, according to the reports of speeches we have read this weekend.
The Press reports of some of the speeches seemed to drip with blood, some of it trade unions' blood. This weekend in relation to this moderate victory there has been provocation which almost equals complete anarchy. There has been irresponsible reaction to the fact that the Congress approved the General Council's policy. The Government should tell the House whether they are content that the General Council's policy was successful at Croydon, or is the policy of non-cooperation not moderate enough? Certain sections of the Press and of the Government are playing with fire. The Government must realise that they are not elected for ever but only for a short time. They do not own Parliament. They have Parliament in trust. We hope the electorate will come to a decision on this.
We are entitled to look at the democratic content of the Bill. The trade union movement believes that certain rights are going by the board in relation to registration, certain rights which the trade union movement has had for over a hundred years. Under Clause 64, it is not a question of the membership being allowed to decide on the rules; the registrar will decide. I should have liked to develop this argument, but the Government, by the operation of the guillotine, have prevented democratic discussion taking place. The Government are the people who are supposed to be the custodians of democracy. They are custodians of democracy to the extent that they are not prepared to allow the Bill to be debated. We are able to debate only a minute proportion of the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the T.U.C. and about the trade union movement trying to misrepresent his Bill, but it is he and his party who are to blame, because the elected representatives of the people have not had a chance to discuss the Bill. This is a complete negation of democracy.

Clause 64(4)(b) says:
that the requirements of subsection (3) of this section, and any other requirements imposed by the registrar as a condition of registration, have been complied with.

If I had had time, I would have liked to develop this argument—

The Solicitor-General: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Eadie: The Government have put down certain Amendments to Clause 64—Amendments Nos. 65 and 66, and we should have liked the Government to tell us precisely what they mean. Do they mean that the Government concede to the argument put forward by my hon. Friends and by the T.U.C. that Clause 64 has become a nonsense? Only by the fact that we have been able to argue in the little time available to us that it has been a nonsense, in the arguments advanced by the T.U.C. and my hon. Friends, have we been able to demonstrate that the Government do not even understand the implications of their own Bill—
It being Twelve o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and the Orders [25th January and 15th March], to put forthwith the Question necessary to complete the proceedings on the new Clause (Effect of entry in special register).

Question put, That the Clause be added to the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 243.

Division No. 270.]
AYES
[12 midnight.


Adley, Robert
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Buck, Antony
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bullus, Sir Eric
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Burden, F. A.
Dykes, Hugh


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Eden, Sir John


Astor, John
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Atkins, Humphrey
Carlisle, Mark
Elliott, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Awdry, Daniel
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.>


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Channon, Paul
Emery, Peter


Balniel, Lord
Chapman, Sydney
Eyre, Reginald


Batsford, Brian
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Farr, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fell, Anthony


Bell, Ronald
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fidler, Michael


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Cockeram, Eric
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Benyon, W.
Cooke, Robert
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Coombs, Derek
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Biffen, John
Cooper, A. E.
Fookes, Miss Janet


Biggs-Davison, John
Cordle, John
Fortescue, Tim


Blaker, Peter
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Foster, Sir John


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Cormack, Patrick
Fowler, Norman


Body, Richard
Costain, A. P.
Fox, Marcus


Boscawen, Robert
Critchley, Julian
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Crouch, David
Fry, Peter


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Crowder, F. P.
Gardner, Edward


Braine, Bernard
Curran, Charles
Gibson-Watt, David


Bray, Ronald
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Brewis, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj-Gen James
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dean, Paul
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Bryan, Paul
Digby, Simon Wingfield





Goodhart, Philip
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Goodhew, Victor
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Rost, Peter


Gower, Raymond
Maddan, Martin
Royle, Anthony


Gray, Hamish
MMICI, David
Russell, Sir Ronald


Green, Alan
Maginnis, John E.
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Grieve, Percy
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Scott, Nicholas


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Marten, Neil
Scott-Hopkins, James


Grylls, Michael
Mather, Carol
Sharpies, Richard


Cummer, Selwyn
Maude, Angus
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Gurden, Harold
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mawby, Ray
Simeons, Charles


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Sinclair, Sir George


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Soref, Harold


Hastings, Stephen
Miscampbell, Norman
Speed, Keith


Havers, Michael
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Spence, John


Hawkins, Paul
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sproat, Iain


Hayhoe, Barney
Moate, Roger
Stainton, Keith


Heseltine, Michael
Molyneaux, Jame
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hicks, Robert
Money, Ernie
Steel, David


Higgins, Terence L.
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Hiley, Joseph
Monro, Hector
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Hill, John E. B. (Norofolk, S.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Hilt, James (Southampton, Test)
More, Jasper
Stokes, John


Holland, Philip
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Holt, Miss Mary
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Sutcliffe, John


Hooson, Emlyn
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Tapsell, Peter


Hornby, Richard
Mudd, David
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.DamePatricia
Murton, Oscar
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Neave, Airey
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Nicholas, Sir Harmar
Tebbit, Norman


Hunt, John
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Temple, John M.


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Norm an ton, Tom
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Iremonger, T. L.
Nott, John
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


James, David
Onslow, Cranley
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Jessel, Toby
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


 Johnson Smith, G. (E, Grinstead)
Osbom, John
Tilney, John


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


 Jopling, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Trew, Peter


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Percivai, Ian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kershaw, Anthony
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Kimball, Marcus
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Vickers, Dame Joan


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pink, R. Bonner
Waddington, David


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pounder, Rafton
Wall, Patrick


 Kinsey, J. R.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Walters, Dennis


 Kirk, Peter
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Ward, Dame Irene


Kitson, Timothy
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Warren, Kenneth


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Knox, David
Quennell, Miss J. M.
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Lambton, Antony
Raison, Timothy
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Lane, David
Ramsden, Rt. Hn, James
Wiggin, Jerry


Langford—Holt, Sir John
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wilkinson, John


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Le Marchant, Spencer
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Woodnutt, Mark


Longden, Gilbert
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Worsley, Marcus


Loveridge, John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Mac Arthur, Ian
Ridsdale, Julian
Younger, Hn. George


McCrindle, R. A.
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey



McLaren, Martin
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McMaster, Stanley
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and




Mr. Walter Clegg.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Bidwell, Sydney
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bishop, E. S.
Campbell, L (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Allen, Scholefield
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cant, R. B.


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Carmichael, Neil


Armstrong, Ernest
Booth, Albert
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)


Ashton, Joe
Bottomley, Rt, Hn. Arthur
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)


Atkinson, Norman
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bradley, Tom
Clark, David (Colne Valley)


Barnes, Michael
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)


Barnett, Joel
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Cohen, Stanley


Beaney, Alan
Buchan, Norman
Coleman, Donald


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Concannon, J. D.







Conlan, Bernard
John, Brynmor
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pendry, Tom


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pentland, Norman


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prescott, John


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W. Ham, S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Probert, Arthur


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Rankin, John


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Judd, Frank
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kaufman, Gerald
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kelley, Richard
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Deakins, Eric
Kerr, Russell
Richard, Ivor


Delargy, H. J.
Kinnock, Neil
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lambie, David
Roberts, Rt.Hn. Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Dempsey, James
Lamond, James
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Doig, Peter
Latham, Arthur
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Dormand, J. D.
Lawson, George
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Roper, John


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Leonard, Dick
Rose, Paul B.


Driberg, Tom
Lestor, Miss Joan
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lipton, Marcus
Short, Mrs.Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lomas, Kenneth
Sillars, James


Ellis, Tom
Loughlin, Charles
Silverman, Julius


English, Michael
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, Fred
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Small, William


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Fisher,Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
McBride, Neil
Spearing, Nigel


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McCartney, Hugh
Spriggs, Leslie


Foley, Maurice
McElhone, Frank
Stallard, A. W.


Foot, Michael
McGuire, Michael
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Forrester, John
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackie, John
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Freeson, Reginald
Mackintosh, John P.
Strang, Gavin


Garrett, W. E.
Maclennan, Robert
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Gilbert, Dr. John
McNamara, J. Kevin
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Ginsburg, David
MacPherson, Malcolm
Swain, Thomas


Golding, John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Taverne, Dick


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.Ceorge (Cardiff,W.)


Gourlay, Harry
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marquand, David
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Tinn, James


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Meacher, Michael
Tomney, Frank


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Torney, Tom


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mendelson, John
Tuck, Raphael


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Millan, Bruce
Urwin, T. W.


Hamling, William
Miller, Dr. M, S.
Wainwright, Edwin


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Hardy, Percy
Molloy, William
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wallace, George


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Watkins, David


Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Weitzman, David


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Wellbeloved, James


Heffer, Eric S.
Moyle, Roland
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Horam, John
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Murray, Ronald King
Whitehead, Phillip


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Ogden, Eric
Whitlock, William


Huckfield, Leslie
O'Halloran, MichaeI
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Oram, Bert
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Orbach, Maurice
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orme, Stanley
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hunter, Adam
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Palmer, Arthur



Janner, Greville
Parker, John (Dagenham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Clause accordingly added to the Bill.

Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Bill, as amended, to be further considered this day.

METRICATION

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

12.11 a.m.

Mr. Marcus Fox: Despite a General Election and a debate on 27th October, there is still complete mystification in the country on the subject of metrication. The Minister for Housing and Construction, in winding up the debate, said that there would be a White Paper before any legislation. We are still waiting for it, but what concerns us is the irrevocable steps which are being taken in the interim.
The date of 1975 is being bandied about. In The Times of 15th March we read that the Director of the Metrication Board said that Britain is already a third of the way in the switch-over to metrication and that Britain is due to be all metric by 1975. I do not blame this gentleman, who is simply carrying out terms of reference of the Board when it was set up in 1969, which were:
to facilitate the transition from the use of the existing systems of weights and measures in the United Kingdom to the metric system, on the assumption that the end of 1975 should be the target operative date for all provisional programmes.
Someone in authority should say that that assumption is incorrect.
There is a hidden momentum to metrication, and not just in education, because of this assumption. It is time that the Government took issue with the Board on this. They are at variance, and the rift is obvious to any informed outsider. It is no surprise, in view of that, that the general public are confused.
Nowhere is this confusion more disturbing than in education. Uncertainty in any sphere is regrettable, but in education it is more disturbing than anywhere else. When my right hon. Friend said in answer to a Parliamentary Question that the teaching of Imperial measurement would go ahead with metric teaching, we accepted it, but when we find what is happening in practice we have the right to be concerned. I do not blame head teachers or suggest changing the system whereby they are responsible for the internal administration of their schools, or say that decisions

about the school curriculum should be taken away from them.
I am concerned about the advice which is coming from some quarters at teach-ins and on B.B.C. programmes. A programme for schools which is broadcast on Mondays and Thursdays at 9.45 a.m. is called "The Penny Programme", and one which I heard was concerned with metrication. It was a comedy act, with a stooge who was giving the impression that we were foolish to continue with the Imperial system and that, if we had any sense, we would go metric as soon as possible. Again the magic date of 1975 featured in the discussion. This is not the way that this should come about.
I come to the crux of the matter, because what gives me most concern is the situation in examinations. We find that examination papers are being presented completely in metric units at the moment. It does not need a genius to realise that obviously all teaching is geared towards examinations and, if examination papers are in metric units, how far we have gone in the teaching in our schools.
I can tell hon. Members that, in O and A levels, S.I. units will be used exclusively between 1972 and 1973. In the case of the certificate of secondary education, it will be a year later. However, I can give many instances where papers in metric units are to be set a good deal earlier. In physics in the G.C.E. 0 and A levels in London, for example, the date is 1972. Wales is two years ahead, because there the physics papers were set in metric in 1970. In the case of 0 and A levels in science and maths in Hampshire, the year is 1972. In the C.S.E. examinations in my own county of Yorkshire, the technical drawing and physics with chemistry papers were set in metric units in 1970, and the same will apply in 1971 to the maths papers.
I am concerned about this preparation and about the switch-over which has occurred already without the knowledge of Parliament and certainly without the knowledge of the general public that many children in our primary schools already are being taught solely in metric units. Working on the date of 1975, which is what many people in education are doing, obviously any child in our primary schools from the session 1968–69 has needed to be taught nothing else


but metric since, by the time that they leave secondary school, Imperial units will be in the past.
No wonder there is a lack of interest in teaching the old system. What is more, surprisingly enough, this has the blessing of the Metrication Board. In its publication "Metrication and the Schools", it tells us:
The education system is going to have a very important part to play not only directly in teaching the metric system at all levels but also indirectly in enlisting the younger generation, who are definitely on our side, to push our elders into thinking metric.
It is unacceptable to many of us that metrication should be brought about in this way. It is completely wrong that children should be taught one system and then for educationists to say that it is the best system and is their reason for going metric.
I claimed just now that the process has gone further than many of us, until now, have thought. In support of that statement, let me refer to sales of books. Many authorities have already issued headmasters and head teachers with instructions that they must not buy any new books in old units. Any new books purchased must be fully metricated. To my knowledge, one firm has sold a million copies of a new metric decimal primary maths series. That is only one set of books sold by one firm last year, and so far this year its sales are up to that. The Chief Inspector of the Inner London Education Authority in the financial year 1969–70 issued an instruction that no mathematics books would be purchased that were not metric as well as decimal. In other words, there is a complete embargo on purchasing any books with Imperial measurements in them.
I sympathise with the publishers, who have to plan ahead for two years; I appreciate that they have worldwide markets but that they need a home market, too. But this issue is far too important for a decision to be taken solely on lines such as those. I am concerned about the fact that those in authority in education appear to be seeking to force this upon us in this way. They know too little of the world at large. They take a decision looking at their own field—and that is an end to it. But I say—and I am sure that many hon. Members will agree with

me—that we want our children at this time to learn two systems. We see nothing wrong in that. If it is a choice, I say, "Let us have that in preference to inflicting full metrication upon the country". If industry can go metric voluntarily, it is not asking a great deal to ask that that should also apply to education.
I wish to leave time for other contributors to the debate, and I will conclude by telling my hon. Friend that I hope that in his reply he will give some proof that the Government accept that we must have a firm line on this matter and that a change of Government can bring about a change of attitude. I am not asking that the Under-Secretary of State should reverse anything that has happened previously or should stop metrication, but I am asking him to remove that date 1975, mythical as it is, as a fixed date for complete metrication in our schools. I hope that he agrees that we ought to slow down this change-over to examination papers which are completely metric.
May I have an assurance from him that for the foreseeable future we shall see that both Imperial and metric units are in general use and that our children are familiar with both. If he does, I am certain that he will earn the gratitude of many people who feel that there is a great danger that, through stealth, they will awaken one morning and find that they are living in a metric Britain—a Britain which has gone metric before any decision on the matter has been taken in this House.

12.23 a.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lomas: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) for raising this issue. Incidentally, he was a worthy opponent to me in 1966, and I very much welcome him to the House. I endorse much of what he said tonight.
We should have from the Government of the day, whichever Government it is, a clear undertaking about where we stand on the subject of metrication, certainly in relation to education. In January, in a Parliamentary Question, I asked when we could expect the White Paper, and I was told, "Soon". I am still awaiting it. It is three or four months later. The issue of metrication in education and everything else was raised in the House on 8th July by the hon.


Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page). The Parliamentary Secretary to the then Ministry of Technology replied that the Government were looking into it. We have gone through a period of gestation and after nine months the time approaches when at least we should have another White Paper or a decision on the issue.
On 27th October, 1970, in a very impressive maiden speech, the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Roger White) again raised the question. It was then stated by the Minister for Industry that the target date was 1975.
I agree with the hon. Member for Shipley that that needs to be looked at. We should see whether we need to go metric; and if we are going metric, there should be some explanation why. The effect on the educational structure, on schools, industry and commerce could be far-reaching.
Is it still a fact that we want to go metric? I am told by teachers in my constituency that thousands of pounds have been spent on the dual system that is now in operation in education. We should be given a clear undertaking where we are going.
I want to be patriotic. To my way of thinking the mile, the fathom, the furlong, the pole and the perch are things that we treasure, and I see no reason to throw them away just to go metric. I hope that the Minister will give a clear indication whether the Government intend to introduce this legislation, and when we can expect a White Paper telling us what he considers the effect will be on our educational structure.

12.26 a.m.

Mr. Roger White: I join the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) in obtaining this debate, and for choosing this debate. He referred to the debate on 27th October last, when I told the House that I thought that it might be a case of metrication overcoming the nation by stealth rather than by agreement. Since then my fears have been extended, certainly in education. Indeed, the Kent County Council, in October, 1969, issued a booklet to teachers in which it said, on the first page, that

the Government should indicate the end of 1975 as the guideline date for the adoption of the metric system for the country as a whole.
This was followed by the Royal Society, on 29th March, 1968, which pointed out that
The Confederation of British Industry has recommended the SI system of units should become dominant in schools by 1971.
This was followed by the South-East Regional Examinations Board in a publication which said:
We are going metric in 1972
and later, under the heading, "Metrication":
All questions involving measurement shall be expressed only in metric units, in the 1972 examinations and thereafter. In relevant questions only SI notation will be used.
I therefore submit that metrication is overcoming this country by stealth.
I join the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West in referring to the Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) at the conclusion of the debate on metrication on 27th October, when he asked the Minister:
Is my right hon. Friend saying that he will produce a White Paper before any legislation is introduced? If so, it would have been helpful if he had said that much earlier.
My right hon. Friend replied:
One is entitled to keep the best cherry in the basket till the end."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th October, 1970; Vol. 805, c. 167.]
I submit that the cherry is already in the basket.
This underlines something that was said a long time ago, namely, "Give me a child to the age of 7 and I will have him for the rest of my life."

12.29 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): I hope that the House will forgive me if I have to be a little brisk. I have only about 10 minutes to try to answer some of the major points about which many people feel strongly. I remember that I was told by one of my relations that Charles Dickens at Gadshill always had two large dogs at the entrance to the house, tied up with long string, so that they could fall upon visitors as they arrived. If one knew how to do it one could find a narrow way through because neither dog coming from either side could reach to the centre.
On the subject of metrication that is how I feel. On the one hand, there are the snarling and savage pro-metrication dogs who think that the Department of Education is dragging its feet and, on the other, the well-mannered and well bred dogs who are behind me. I must make it quite clear that I am here only to answer the education side of the question, and my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) cannot fairly expect me to pontificate on the Government's policy in the matter generally. I am not the correct person to answer on that.
The essential problem is that in various centres of industry the Government have encouraged the voluntary move over to metrication, and this is the present Government's policy, and they have allowed each sector to set its own pace. We all know that different sectors have a different pace. We all know that they have reached a different stage; and that some have not wished to move in this way at all. That is the background against which the education service has to provide an appropriate instruction to our young people. It is perfectly true that the change over in some places is taking much longer than it is in others, and there is certainly no commitment on the part of the Government, as we meet tonight, to the date of 1975 or, as far as I understand it, any other date.
I hope that what I say will help my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox), who made an admirable speech. The general position is that, as a result of the background which I have very briefly explained, the metric and Imperial measures not only exist side by side but will continue to do so for some considerable time to come whatever decision this House may come to. The fact is that even if the House decides that at a particular date the country will go metric—and I do not conclude one way or the other—if that were the case instruction in the imperial measures would still be necessary even after that, because large numbers of textbooks, and so on, will refer back at any rate for an appreciable time to the former Imperial measures.
It is perfectly true that the co-existence of the two systems of measurement is inconvenient and it is untidy, but I say respectfully to my hon. Friend that this

is not confusing. It is not something for which the education service is responsible. This is the situation against which that service has to work.
What I am seeking to say is that it is, or should be, the practice of the education service to reflect what is happening, or what has happened, in society in general and the world at large. We are not a channel, or should not be a channel, and I gladly take the opportunity to make it clear that we do not regard ourselves as being a channel for the propagation of a vested or other similar interest. On the other hand, we do not, I hope, by our instruction wilfully resist change.
I must remind the House that just as metric weights and measures have always been used in some industries, if on a very restricted scale, compared with the widespread use of the Imperial system so, too, the metric system has already long been taught in education establishments—again, of course, very much as a second string to the Imperial system. With the increasing use of the metric system over the past few years, the balance of teaching has been changing, and this is understandably a reflection of the facts of the situation today.
The education service is fully aware of the conflicting views which exist on this subject, but only half of which have been heard tonight. However, I can assure the House that we are under great pressure in the opposite direction. We wish to take a middle course in this matter, and I repeat that until the White Paper is laid before the House—and I do not and cannot answer for that—we must tonight take the situation as it is now. I must make it clear that to the education system, metrication is merely a curriculum question. As I said we are not a system of propaganda and we are not resisting change. Thus, for us it is a curriculum question.
Some people seem to think that the Department can in some way either bring about or forestall, according to one's view, a change to metric teaching by some decree. This is not and never has been the position of the Department. The responsibility for providing education in the public sector rests with the local education authorities, and control of the curriculum is vested in them by law, except in voluntary aided schools, where the governors have control. In practice, there


is a high degree of devolution through the heads of education establishments, and all these factors apply to other subjects just as much as they apply to metrication, as must be the case with any subject or system which forms part of the curriculum.
I was asked about advice which is being given to schools. Advice on the timing and implementation of metrication in schools and colleges comes from various sources such as the Schools Council and the Metrication Board—the latter is, as has been pointed out, a propaganda instrument—from the announcements of various examination boards; from specialist advisers, including Her Majesty's Inspectors; and from news and information bulletins.
The point I am trying to make in the short time available to me is that none of this advice is mandatory on the teacher, although it is of great help to her or him in deciding how best to prepare the young people in her or his charge, but subject to the direction of supervisors and the policies of the local education authority about the provision of textbooks and equipment.
I come to the advice which has been given to education authorities and establishments on the question of changing to metric teaching, and their response to it. On the former, the Department offered direct advice to all the education and other interests concerned as far back as the beginning of 1968. As a result, the changes in syllabuses and examinations are being effected in our technical colleges with what can fairly be described as a remarkable lack of confusion, and I therefore do not accept that there is any confusion in this respect.
It is true that there have had to be special arrangements made by seven examining bodies concerned with keeping colleges informed on metrication generally and its effect on syllabuses and examinations. This has all worked very effectively, and my inquiries in the col-

lege sector show that it has made the task of all concerned with the courses much easier than it might otherwise have been.
I will briefly, because little time remains, summarise the effect of all this. The changes taking place in further education courses and examinations are made in close step with the corresponding changes in industry.
That brings me back to the point with which I began, that we are not as a service an initiating service or a propaganda service. But it must be our duty to prepare our young people for the world in which they actually live, and not—I repeat—be the subject of a propaganda operation.
If I may say so, I have had very much to trancate a somewhat complicated argument, but I hope that at least the assurance which I was able to give of the continuation of the two systems at least until this House has made a decision may have gone some way to allay the anxieties which, I know, my hon. Friend feels.

Mrs. Peggy Fenner: No.

Mr. John Page: My hon. Friend talked about assurances, but, far as I know, he did not give any. As far as I know, all examinations are now in metric. If all examinations are in metric, all teaching will be in metric. If it be a fact that there is no confusion, this is so because it is all going metric now. It is most surprising that this should be done, considering the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend—

The Question having been proposed after Twelve o'clock on Monday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at nineteen minutes to One o'clock.